HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:31:33
	<RIGG.92Oct5093421@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Oct6.171741.5108@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:17:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.171741.5108@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Earlier I made a case - in opposition to a contrary claim by another
   poster - that it's unlikely for an injured animal to recover and it's very
   likely for him or her to suffer a lingering painful death.  This opens
   up questions like how often do these lingering deaths occur and do they
   offset any claimed advantages for bowhunting?   The future fate of the
   legalization of bowhunting may well hinge on the answers.

I agree.  However, as I mentioned earlier, the kill/hit ratio is quite
high for responsible bowhunters.  There should be checks in place to
remove irresponsible "bowhunters".

   So greater range increases the chance for greater suffering, and that's
   why it's a concern.  If populations need to be controlled this way, it
   would be much better to dart/arrow the animals with a dose or overdose
   of fast acting tranquilizer and then, if necessary, administer a final
   dose when the animal is found - much like the vet does when I take in my
   elderly terminally-ill dogs and cats.  In fact this would be more humane
   than gun hunting also, where the crippling rate is usually cited as being
   around 7%.

I'll say that drugs are a completely unacceptable solution to me.  One
of the primary advantags of venison is drug-free meat.  I would not
intentionally taint my meat with some powerful tranquilizer.


   His plainly stated "agenda" is (1) to publicize his conclusion that
   broadhead arrows lead to unacceptable levels of suffering and (2) to
   propose a more humane alternative.

1)  I think poor archers lead to unaccpetably high levels of
suffering.

2)  what is his "more humane alternative"?

   Remember that Benke is not the only one who's attributing high wounding
   rates to the broadhead arrow.  If he stood alone, his proclamations
   might be more easily dismissed (though still not necessarily false).  He
   is backed up by other studies (with year and bowhunting wound rate
   parenthetically following each report) such as: 

	[numerous studies finding a ~50% wound rate deleted]

There are two points that need to be made:

1)  wounding does not mean a slow lingering death.  I wager that at
least 50% of these wounds are superficial from which the deer recovers
fully.  However, the exact ratio of wound/death is most likely quite
unknown.

2)  decreasing the ratio of "weekend" bowhunters to "real" bowhunters
would do quite a bit to reduce the wounding rate.


tim
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:09:04 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

>In another case, 10 goats were wounded.  Two suffered heart hits and
>died within seconds.  A third goat suffered a severed femoral artery and
>died after 55 minutes.

	It's rather interesting to note that a femoral artery hit in a 
human will likely kill due to blood loss in a few minutes; in a goat it
took 55.  Either that goat has a lot of blood, or else it is able to
withstand injuries that would kill a normal human.  Thus, I wonder just
how well-founded the conclusions based on the data are.  I've already
posted about stabbing a cow in the stomach to allow the escape of gas
and her survival, yet the same stab would have killed a human.  Perhaps
these tests were less scientific in their reproducability and relevance
than was previously warranted?  If a goat takes 55 minutes to die from
a femoral cut, and a cow survives a stomach puncture, what is to say
a broadhead through a deer's abdomen will surely kill it?

	I don't dount that many wounded deer die; I do wonder how the
data above can be construed to be relevant from goats to deer if they
aren't from goats to cattle or from goats to humans.  The old saw
of medical tests not being applicable cuts both ways.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.165010.18739@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1eav02LF25TT01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>>with the following ethic:
>>
>>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.
>
>	You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
>	the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
>	do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
>	inappropriate.

Couldn't resist interjecting a quick thought here and then I'll try to
return to the bowhunting world tomorrow ...

It may well be that there are thousands of people who reject Ted's
postulate.  But has anyone actually done so? If not, then why get
sidetracked by ASSUMING that someone MIGHT object? Why not wait until
someone actually DOES object? At that point, Ted could address the
objection.  In the meantime, it doesn't seem like a wise use of Ted's
valuable time to expend effort in addressing a case that has not even
arisen and is still in the strictly hypothetical stage. 

Secondly, assuming that there will be objections, then I would further
suggest that we request these objectors to demonstrate their good faith
by voluntarily submitting to lots of unwanted pain.  In this way we can
weed out frivolous objections and test the seriousness of the objector. 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: PETA Action Line
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:27:08 GMT



>From the PETA Action Line - (301)770-8980:
 
+ The Australian group, Animal Liberation, is calling upon their national
air carrier Qantas, to stop the transporting of monkeys to research
facilities in the United States.  One recent shipment of 49 macaque monkeys
made their way to the Tulane Primate Center, where some have been used for
military experiments.  Qantas has agreed to suspend the shipments until they
have met with all interested parties. Your letters to Qantas are needed! Let
them know how you feel about flying on an airline that transports monkeys to
a most barbaric fate.  Write to:
 
Mr. John Ward                       Prof. Max Neutze
Chief Executive                     Director,
Qantas Airways Ltd.                 Institute of Advanced Studies
GPO Box 498                         Australian National University
Sydney 2001                         Canberra Act 2601
Australia                           Australia
 
+ It's the auto show season and PETA will be hitting GM harder than ever at
car shows across the nation and the globe.  We will be increasing the number
of shows in order to inform the public of the cruel and unnecessary use of
animals in crash tests.  Help us put GM out of the vivisection business by
calling 1-301-770-PETA ext. 322 for information on a show near you.
Literature is available for protests and leafletting - so call now. Also, if
you have not yet done so, write to GM Chairperson Robert Stemple at 3044 GM
Blvd., GM Building, Detroit, MI  48202.
 
+ Activists help educate others with PETA's anti-fur library display. Many
libraries have display cases that are open for public use. With PETA's
display material, a powerful anti-fur message can be sent to those who use
our public libraries. Included in the material is a fur coat, a beautiful
photo of the animal from which it came and a large tag giving the number of
animals killed.  Also included is information on the fur industry and red
stripe reading, "This year millions of animals will be killed in the fur
trade" and "PETA."  Help empower the animals by ordering your display or
anti-fur cards and literature today from our Outreach Department.
 
+ Write to 60 Minutes and ask that they air the story entitled "Fur or
Against," the hard hitting expose on the fur industry and the cruelty
inherent in the trade.  Write to:
 
Mr. Don Hewitt
60 Minutes
524 W. 57th Street
New York, NY  10019
 
+ The following are NEW 1-800 numbers.  If you call, make them polite ones:
 
National Fur Processors 77-BEARS
D. Cohn Fur Processors 2-TAN-FUR
Northern Fur and Sport 523-4803
Seattle Fur Exchange & Auction House 445-MINK
Henig Furs 521-2037
U.S.A Foxx & Furs USA-FOXX
Furs by Weiss 423-MINK
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:21:23 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

Find someone else who's tactics are more to your liking and engage him/her in 
a dialogue. You should realize that when you slam Russell, you tell us far 
more about yourself than about him.   
 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics (was: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:01:09 GMT

Alka,
Thanks for the compliments.  It is nice to know that you appreciate my
talents.

You said my first talent was reading Russell's mind, based on my saying
that Russell wasn't hoping for Mike to explain.  Here you overestimate
me;  my comment was based on the evidence that no explanation Mike has
ever given to Russell has been accepted rather than a paranormal talent.

You said my second talent was overlooking the convictions of others while
maintaining the unquestionability of other religious doctrines.  On the
contrary, I merely pointed out that Russell would not afford this
respect to Mike.  In asking Russell to prove that witches were human
and not a supernatural creature in the Biblical text, I was asking him
to play fair, since he has repeatedly said that Mike's God is not real.
It is unfair for Russell to maintain that witches are real while not
allowing Mike to maintain that God is real and the Bible is a work of God.
This does not mean that Russell must accept their reality for himself;
merely that equal standards of evaluation should be applied.

You said my third talent was ignoring the opinions of others because I
felt it was insulting for Russell to repeatedly refer to Mike's God
as '"god"'(lower case *and* quotes).  The name "God" is a proper name
just as is Zeus and should be capitalized when refering to that
entity.

You said my fourth talent is that I share the ability to argue in a
manner similar to Russell.  I choose my argument style to best meet the
challenges presented by the opponent.  You have seen a much more light-
hearted style in my posts to you.

You said my fifth talent is the use of the double standard, and said:
"(Otto thinks that God is legit, but witches are not.  -- I, for one,
know several witches, but I've yet to meet god.)  Now, for the first
time, I will state that I am a Christian and believe in God.  Prior
to this statement, you were using the mind-reading technique to make
any assertion about my sprituality.  As for whether or not I believe
that witches are legit, the question must be viewed in the context.
I challenged Russell to prove that Biblical witches (witches with
the supernatural abilities described in the Bible) are human.  Since
Russell has asserted that Biblical instructions to destroy witches
gives Mike license to kill people, it only makes sense to prove that
his assertion is based in fact rather than misinterpretation.  Whether
I believe in witches or not does not support or refute Russell's
assertion that witches are people.  While it is interesting that
you claim to have met witches, that is heresay evidence.  You have
no evidence that these individuals are both human and supernatural
Biblical witches.


Mary Otto
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:44:37 GMT

Just some hours ago I saw a report about test animals in japan (apes).
They were treated like waste (man like apes ???, Sorry no translation
in my dictionary). Thereby their immune-system is shocked and the
results of the tests (for medicine) become unreliable.
If they know that. Why do they still test?

Udo.

-- 
This is not eden, this is hells outer office.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:44:15 GMT

In article <BvvEJq.Hpz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>James Hoskins writes:
>jh> Many people, quite learned, empirical and rational have religious
>jh> faith.  The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. 
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Proof?
>
>From article <1992Oct9.150043.25226@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, by motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto):
>mo> Here's just a few of the many learned, empirical and rational thinkers
>mo> who were Christians.  (I think Mike Linan is in good company.)
>mo> 
>mo> Galileo, 
>mo> Newton (who actually did quite a bit of religious writing)
>mo> Isaac Newton (who actually did quite a bit of religious writing)
>mo> Euler was a devout Lutheran
>mo> Copernicus was a priest
>
>
Russell responds to my post:
(Wild diversion deleted -- RL Tactic 111 - Divert to other controversy.)

>What you're saying is that some people who know how to think 
>rationally may be willing to accept some beliefs without 
>thinking at all.   This doesn't mean that rational scutiny
>and mindless acceptance go hand in hand.   
>
No.  What I'm saying is "here's proof that many learned, empirical
and rational thinkers were Christians".  Newton, who spent the
years of his life after the age of 45 studying and writing about
scriptural prophesies, obviously did quite a bit of thinking about
his beliefs.  As did Copernicus.

So, your initial premise that there aren't many "learned, empirical
and rational" thinkers who have religious faith has been DISPROVEN.
(My examples were selected for their notability.  I could post
hundreds, it that were necessary to meet your requirements for "many".)

And your second premise that religious beliefs are accepted "without
thinking at all" is DISPROVEN by the works of religious philosophy
authored by these same Christians I have mentioned in my post.
Mary Otto



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Call for Response: alt.russell.biblical.nonsense
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:51:30 GMT

From article <swood.719091884@vela>, by swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG):
sw> This train of thought does not need to go on in a 
sw> talk.politics.animals group.  Over the past two weeks I have seen 
sw> these articles fill close to 40% of the articles in the group.  
sw> Of those, I have seen less than 25% that directly touch animal 
sw> issues.  
sw> 
sw> Take the religion discussions either to an appropriate group, or 
sw> even better, to email (as the majority of this discussion has 
sw> included the same names) 
sw>
sw> I wrote to the people directly involved, and of all the ones that 
sw> I wrote, the only negative - non-cooperative response I received, 
sw> was from Russell, so thus the Subject line....  

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that religious concepts, 
like it or not, have played a major role in rights debates over 
the past three hundred years, and they continue to do so even in
our day and age.

As I've explained to you previously, some of the major questions at 
hand can't be resolved politically without addressing religious 
ideas, notably the biblical "dominion" concept and the idea of 
the "great chain of being".  In addition, we've witnessed repeated 
demonstrations of a double-sided epistemological standard among 
some of the posters here: an extremely lax standard for AR 
opponents (especially hunters) who claim to speak for a god or 
goddess, and a more rigorous standard for AR advocates who aren't 
philosophically dependent on special connections with a deity.  

If you're not interested in the religious aspects of the debate,
it's fine with me.  Learn to use the 'n' key.  Or better yet, you
could set up a killfile.  Either way, however, you can count on
me to present a _polite_ commentary on your postings if/when I spot 
dubious facts or logical fallacies.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: an observation
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:46:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct6.143905.3671@cs.mun.ca> ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna) writes:
>linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct5.210414.11725@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>>>>Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>>>>Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?


>>>It is just you, Todd. 


>>I think you are mistaken Paul. 


>>Mike Linan

>Or perhaps you are Mike.

>alka


Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:05:10 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If your "god" ordered you to kill a group of individuals...  without 
rl> explaining his reasons, would you disobey? 

From article <1992Oct11.005810.15071@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
wc> A tricky question.  Determining whether or not it was in fact God 
wc> who told me, I would have to act as the spirit moved me.  God 
wc> alone will judge whether I did as God intended me to.  

In this country, you'd be judged by a jury of folks who may have 
"gods" that are quite different from your own.  Some of them may 
have no religious beliefs at all, and conclude that anyone who 
kills in the name of a fictitious "god" is either an insincere 
criminal or a dangerous lunatic.    

Several years ago a geologist working for a major oil company here
in New Orleans was ordered by "god" to kill a woman and two kids.
He succeeded in killing the kids with a knife.  He critically 
injured the woman, but she survived and testified at his murder
trial.  He's now locked up in Angola prison, I believe, where he's
no doubt had quite a bit of time to rethink his belief that
all humans belong to "god".

wc> Again however I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion 
wc> at hand.  

It's clear that you won't be able to understand the concept of animal
rights if your religious notions prevent you from accepting the concept
of human rights.  

Does your "god" truly own my body, to (mis)treat as he and his 
followers see fit?  Or does my body belong to my mind, to deal 
with as I see fit?  

Does your "god" truly own the body of a cow to (mis)treat as
he and his followers see fit?  Or does the cow's body belong to
the mind of the cow?

-- 
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: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:35:12 GMT

From article <1992Oct13.212416.9819@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
wc> Show me how God disproves of the way humans treat animals.

Show me that your "god" really and truly disapproved of the 
mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of witches, heretics, and 
unbelievers during the late middle ages.  After all, your "god" 
did say: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Animals in research
Reply-To: me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:26:03 GMT

In article <Bvs3rt.HLq@acsu.buffalo.edu> rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M.  
Straubinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.004437.378@halfab.ka.sub.org> me@halfab.ka.sub.org  
writes:
> >Just some hours ago I saw a report about test animals in japan (apes).
> >They were treated like waste ...
> > .... Why do they still test?
...
>    Vague as this story is, it prompts a question -- does anyone know
> how animal research is reviewed and regulated in Japan?
...
Maybe it is vague because of the posters prepossession for animals (it's me).
The tests in Japan are regulated. The report showed no ugly bloody scenes.
But the animals where held in small and empty cages and their behaviour and
lineaments showed fear. They were treated not like a living beeing
but more like a worthless thing. This was appalling.
The testers knew that the test environment leads to unreliable results.
This was an astounding statement. And it was their statement.
But they do not change the environment. This seems to me like a short.
So my question is: if testers know that, why do they test that way?

Udo.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:39:05 GMT

linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:

>In article <1992Oct5.210414.11725@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct05.142809.8848@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>>>Is it just me, or does it look to anyone else like nobody is taking poor
>>>Russell Lawrence seriously anymore?


>>It is just you, Todd. 


>I think you are mistaken Paul. 


>Mike Linan

Or perhaps you are Mike.

alka





> 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals