HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  (Jesse M. Goldman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: SCIENCE
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:47:32 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Univ. of Penn


Simply because I like controversy (it is a university) I'd like opinions
on the use of animals in medical research.  My personal belief is that
while no life should be INTENTIONALLY wasted or subject to pain I believe 
that animal research including death is necessary.  Especially before
administration to people.  Anyone who feels no animal research is
acceptible is living in a fantasy world if only because computer-generated
analysis and test tube experiments would never satisfy the public at large.
                                 
                       Jesse

=============================================================================
=        Who is he to Hecuba or Hecuba to he                               
=
=                                     -Hamlet (Bill Shakespeare)           
=
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:26:55 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do you have any evidence to prove your conjecture that wolves are capable
rl> of taking perfectly healthy deer?

In article <1cny9pc@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> Russell, even a coyote pack can take down a healthy deer.  Please
jve> write to:
jve> 
jve> NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
jve> 50 Wolf Road
jve> Albany, New York  12233-4790
jve> 
jve> and ask them for a copy of their recent study on coyotes and deer.

Thanks for the pointer.  I'll be sending off a request for 
information in just a few moments and will post my response as 
soon as I've had a chance to critically evaluate the reply.  

Meanwhile, I'd recommend that readers take a look at Farley Mowat's 
book, _Never Cry Wolf_.  In the first few chapters, Mowat explains
the widespread belief among Canadian wildlife officials that wolf
predation was largely responsible for declining populations of 
canadian deer.  Mowat's observations of wolf behavior debunked those
beliefs and reaffirmed the idea that wolf predation is, indeed,
selective.

jve> Unless of course you're going to start that familiar "oh, hunters own
jve> the game departments so that's a bad source" AR bullsh--. ;-)

Nope.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:29:42
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:22:00 GMT

In article <Btv4Go.9o0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Aug31103434@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Mr Beem enclosed a 1000 acre hunting resort for $75,000.  I provided
   tr> documentation and sources.  You have provided nothing excpet a wild
   tr> guess that such a fence would have been millions of dollars.  Please
   tr> provide some evidence to support your opinions.  I have provided mine!

   Without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing, please explain:

   -- How large is the LACS property?

It doesn't matter.  They could have enclosed a 1000 acre plot to test
your idea.  

   -- How much would it cost to fence the LACS property using materials
      that the LACS officials would regard as ethically acceptable?

Around $100,000 (US).

   -- Without studying the books, how were you able to determine that
      LACS could easily afford a fence?

Jonathon spencer has read published information about the LACS budget.
In one year alone, they gave $150,000 (US) in political contributions.
Therefore, they had at least $150,000 to spend on causes it deemed
appropriate.  Obviously, they did not think a fence was appropriate.


Now, "without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing", please
provide some documented proof that prey animals can regulate their
poplations.

tim


--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: HUNTING; RABIES
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:48:26 GMT

In <9208251458.AA20069@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:


>The mid-Atlantic raccoon rabies pandemic reached Staten Island on
>March 12, the closest advance yet to New York City.  The pandemic,
>begun in 1977 by hunters and trappers who released rabid raccoons
>from Florida in an attempt to restock their neighborhood in
>Virginia, has already spread past New York into southern
>Connecticut, and has gone as far north as Ithaca and Watkins Glen,
>N.Y. 

	This is very doubtful, since rabies is a disease racoons are
noted for having from Massachusettes to Colorado and everywhere in
between.  Something tells me this claim made is akin to blaming the
CIA for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >


Organization: Doctoral student, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 1992 14:11:24 -0400 
From: "L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: swan hunting

 
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED!
 
Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.
Applying for a permit is simple:  no hunting license is required, applicants
do not have to be a resident of North Carolina and the fee is only $5.00.
Permits are issued based on a computer drawing to be held October 1.  Since
only one swan is allowed to be killed per permit, the Fund for Animals and
the Greenville Chapter of North Carolina Network for Animals are asking
activists from all over the country to apply for a permit.  Each permit
received by a non-hunter means one less awarded to a hunter and one swan
saved.  Request an application from ([Bunny Huggers'] Editor's note: do not
use animal rights stickers or stamps on your envelopes or pay for the permit
with "message" checks; if you receive a permit, please contact the Fund, 850
Sligo Avenue, Suite LL2, Silver Spring, MD  20910):
 
Permit Hunts
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina  27604-1188
 
 


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:19:11
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:06:41 GMT

In article <Btwq37.Mwx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   One more point: As I've mentioned previously, I've seen at least 
   two references in hunting texts and magazines which specifically 
   addressed the fact that deer "harvests" (aka fertility) can be 
   increased by means of forest management practices that increase 
   the amount of food available to deer in the spring and summer 
   months, ie more food means more fat, which means more fawns.  Now 
   let's suppose that a game manager has taken advantage of these 
   practices in order to produce plenty of singletons among one year 
   old adolescent does and a bountiful "crop" of twin fawns among 
   the older females.  If the increased population produces the 
   threat of starvation the following winter, would it be reasonable 
   for the game manager to cite the threat of starvation as a 
   rationale for sport hunting?  Or, would you agree with me that 
   such a rationale is flimsy and transparent?  

There is no doubt that forest management practices and farming can
cause deer populations to explode by increasing fertility.  However,
the decision to clearcut much of northern Wisconsin is not made by
hunters.  It is made by pulp and paper mills.  Similarly, I doubt that
farmers in the southern part of the state care what hunters want.

Clearcuts and farm fields have combined with extremely mild winters to
cause deer herds to explode in Wisconsin.  A harsh winter or a reduced
kill (due to bad weather during hunting season) would result in
extensive, long-lasting damage to winter habitat and a very large
winter kill.

There are several solutions to this problem:

1.)  Stop clearcutting and growing crops.  Reduce the market for corn
and paper and this might work.

2.)  Just say doe!  By culling a large number of does, hunters can
balance the herd.  This is the solution that the DNR and most hunters
(including myself) support.

Any other suggestions?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:11:04 GMT

In article <tcwyp6b@rpi.edu>, John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> Russell, I've never said that anyone shouldn't have voted, and no
jve> matter how many times you try to assert this, it will forever be
jve> false.  Is that the only way you can admit Linda's error about trying
jve> to label me as "sexist," by trying to accuse me of some other "lesser"
jve> false crime?  I'm not asking you or Linda to appologize for the false
jve> remark about me being "sexist" and "demeaning," Russell, but further
jve> false accusations strike me as a bit much.

In case anybody got the wrong idea, here's what you said in response
to Ferrell's summary of Linda's views:

	"I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers
	 or whatever) vote in this."

rl> Fair enough.  I'll accept your statements at face-value, and I'll
rl> let Linda know where you stand.  [You're in her killfile, I believe.]

lg> It does my heart good to hear this, and I want you to be sure to tell
lg> her to keep me right in there, Russell.

No need.  

> ...
rl> While she's neither pro-AR nor
rl> anti-AR, I can assure you that she's quite familiar with the issues
rl> and would have little trouble debating either side with considerable
rl> expertise.  By dismissing her opinion, you were casting doubt on
rl> her integrity as well as my own.

jve> Clearly you are confused, as ever.  I've never dismissed anyone's 
jve> opinion.  As far as your integrity is concerned, after trying to 
jve> tell this forum that *I* was the one that called for the vote on 
jve> Ferrell Wheeler's posting, I think you do it far more harm than 
jve> anyone else ever could.  <wishing I could put a smiley here> 

I'm not accusing you of calling for the "vote" on the matter of
Ferrell's posting privileges.  I realize that Ferrell himself asked
people to give him feed-back on the usefulness of the material.  The
problem that I perceived arose from your attempt to turn informal
feedback into some sort of official process.   Your insistence that
people send carbon copies to you in order to "keep Ferrell honest"
struck me as particularly high-handed. 

rl> Once again, let me remind you that you're not the official censor 
rl> of t.p.a.

rl> You crack me up, Russell.  Still trying to bail out your sinking ship
rl> with the word "censor."  You're wrong about that.  You're wrong about
rl> me starting the vote.  You're wrong about me being "sexist" and
rl> "demeaning."  You're wrong about me "still reading child pornography."
rl> You're wrong about me being "prejudiced" and a "racist."  So why don't
rl> you abandon your name-calling before you make yourself look even more
rl> silly (as much as I enjoy seeing your vivid imagination in action)?

Thanks for "letting" one of the female employees of my company 
voice her expressions of gratitude to Ferrell Wheeler for posting 
material that she found useful.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:06:21 GMT


Mark Pleis writes:
mp> PETA
mp> People for the eating of tasty animals.
mp> 
mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers 
mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast 
mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit 
mp> straight 
mp> 
mp>
mp> Beef Real food for REAL people

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a 
rl> high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?
rl> 
rl> Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation 
rl> between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
rl> diabetes?

From article <1992Sep3.160238.9425@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
mp> No public health organization has said that eating meat is bad.

Would you mind answering the questions I asked previously?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: OMAK SUICIDE RACE
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:55:30 GMT


OMAK SUICIDE RACE HORSE DEATHS

July 29, 1992

During the trials runs for the Omak (WA) "Suicide Run" horse race
held last weekend, two horses drowned while trying to cross a rain-
swollen river.  The Suicide Race, held on a course that takes the
horses down a 250 ft. steep incline and directly into the river,
has been denounced by animal rights groups for many years.  At least
eight horses have died in the event during the past decade.

The Suicide Run is actual a series of timed races and are part
of the Omak Stampede, a rodeo that is the biggest tourist attraction
in the Okanogan County.  The drownings occurred during time trials
for the actual races, which will be held August 7 - 9.

The Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), along with the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is investigating the
drownings and may file charges if there is enough evidence.
As of this date the Okanogan County prosecutor has declined 
to take any action.  Under Washington law, the local prosecutor
has full discretion and the only authority about the filing of
any charges.

PAWS is also launching an immediate campaign urging tourists and
potential tourists to boycott all of Okanohan County.  PAWS is
asking anyone interested to write a letter addressed to "The GOOD
People of Omak," telling them why they don't support the event. The 
letters should be sent to PAWS, PO Box 1037, Lynnwood, WA  98046.
PAWS hopes to deliver all of the letters to the Okanogan Chamber 
of Commerce on the day before the races begin.

For more information, contact me by e-mail or phone Mitchell Fox at
PAWS, 206-742-4142 ext 810.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:02:32 GMT

As quoted from <BtxoLq.A30@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
rl> In the previous passage above, you seemed to be saying that the 
rl> "goodness" or "badness" of an ethical action ought to be measured 
rl> by opinion alone, as though our minds might be incapable of digging 
rl> deeper than the level of mere "acceptability" and 
rl> "non-acceptability".  If that's the case, please tell us: 

From article <Bu0vAq.1sv@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> And once again you veritably glory in the opportunity to equate 
cm> Blacks and non-human animals.  I refuse to take part in such an 
cm> orgy of depravity.  If I was willing to do that, I'd have been in 
cm> that cabin with your intellectual contemporary, Weaver.  

Would you mind quoting the passage where I allegedly equated blacks
and non-human animals?    

rl> I can understand that murder may seem acceptable to murderers, 
rl> and that rape may seem acceptable to rapists and that slavery may 
rl> have seemed acceptable to the owner of Dred Scott.  I can also 
rl> understand why sport hunting might seem acceptable to aliens.  

cm> At least you're starting to catch on... maybe.

rl> What I'm asking you, however, is this:  Would you be able to name 
rl> any reasons why such actions might not be good?  

cm> Because they harm other HUMANS, and violate their RIGHTS, which 
cm> only HUMANS possess.  

Would you mind explaining why you think humans alone should
possess rights?

Before answering, please read the following passage very carefully:
==================================================================
From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.

   11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
       that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
       it supposed to be proved. 
==================================================================

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:27:07 GMT

"L. Jean Camp" writes:

>IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED!
> 
>Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]

>  Each permit
   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>received by a non-hunter means one less awarded to a hunter and one swan
>saved.                                                          ^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^

     Huh?  And I could have sworn I put new batteries in my
calculator, too...


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:34:32 GMT

Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:

>Here are all of the votes that I received:

[...]
>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes
>
>Wed, 12 Aug 92 03:52 CDT
>linda@wpg.com -- Yes

I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or mothers or
whatever) vote in this. :-) :-) Just funnin' ya, Russell.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:02:16 GMT


Mark Pleis comments on the Iowa Conference schedule:
mp> 1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
mp> Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the
mp> waste to replace the chemicals.

Russell Lawrence asks:
rl> How much fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel is required to produce
rl> animal manure?
rl> 
rl> How much manure is produced each year in the US?  And how much of it
rl> is reused in agriculture?

From article <1992Sep3.160044.9271@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
mp> You "AR" people are realy more full of bull shit than your average 
mp> bull.

Would you mind presenting some facts to prove the notion that animal
agriculture reduces the need for chemicals in our society?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,talk.politics.misc
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:51:06 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <crbn1-b@dixie.com> refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom) writes:
>wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>>The "Yes" vote won by a 2 to 1 margin.  The totals are:

>>   Yes -- 6 votes
>>   No  -- 3 votes

>>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) -- Yes

>>linda@wpg.com -- Yes

>Apparently our good pal Russell isn't above a little ballot-stuffing.

>Nice job, Russell, though a little thin on originality.

>Let's all just agree that it won by 5-3, not 6-3.

>Todd++;

Much to my shame I must admit that I did not vote (naturally everybody knows
this already from the posted results).  However, had I voted the results 
would have been 5-4, not 6-3 (given the elimination of linda@wpg).  Of course
we could let her vote stand and then I've got a bunch of buddies who would
also like to post their votes.  Next thing you know we would have the entire
US population voting and we already know who would win then, don't we? ;-)

Mike Linan
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:59:20 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: "L. Jean Camp"'s message of Tue,  1 Sep 1992 14:11:24 -0400

Why are the swans being killed?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)