HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:53:55 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <BtA3pn.JG4@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk 
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

> Well, nature *has* taken its course. And now the LACS has red deer
> coming out of its ears. They have a statutory obligation to prevent
> marauding deer from damaging neighbour's crops (which the deer are
> doing). Their piece of land will support only so many deer.
 
Thanks for the description of this situation. I've been curious about it for 
some time and enjoyed getting more details.

From what I can tell, the problem faced by the LACS is NOT one of deer 
starvation, but rather of "marauding deer". Food seems to be sufficient, it's 
just that the deer have to go next door to get it.

More to the point: lacking an enclosure to contain the deer (which would've 
forced them to live off their "own" land), Russell's self-regulation 
mechanism wouldn't have been invoked, so the situation provides no insight as 
to the validity of this mechanism.   

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:02:04 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <9208111714.AA02594@alw.nih.gov> young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
>
>I  find it astounding that a supposed animal lover could equate the taking
>of a wild animal for food to the brutal killing of a family member, no matter

Don't you love these euphemisms?

When you approve of it, it is "taking". When you disapprove of it, it
is "brutal killing".
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Agri-News
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:33:29 GMT


 
Agri-News
 
The USDA Office of Inspector General audit done in March 1991,
obtained in August by Associated Press via the Freedom of
Information Act, warned that numerous dairy products are
manufactured under unsanitary conditions because the Agriculture
Marketing Service has failed to prosecute the offending companies.
 
=================
 
The United Nations Environment Program reports that 85% of western
US rangeland is overgrazed, inducing 265 million acres of federal
land, only 25% of which has been scheduled for reduced grazing. 
About 13 million acres are apparently irreversible degraded.  An
all-time high of 19 million cattle now roam the range in the 11
westernmost states of the continental U.S.
 
==================
 
Lester Crawford, an outspoken critic of sanitary conditions in
chicken processing plants, has resigned as head of the USDA Food
Safety and Inspection Service to take a job with the Natl. Food
Processors Assn., a trade group.
 
==================
 
The Univ. of Iowa estimates that half of the 240,000 US pig farmers
have work-related illnesses.  Sixty percent of those who keep pigs
in confinement have respiratory ailments, aggravated by fumes and
airborne particles from the excrement.  The effect on the pigs -
whose lifespans are typically just 6 months - is largely unknown.
 
==================
 
The Louisiana Agriculture Dept. finally banned use of the pesticide
azinphosmethyl in late August, after nearly a million fish were
killed in 19 separate incidents, one of which wiped out aquatic
life along a 10-mile stretch of Bayou Lafourche.  State wildlife
officials had suspected the pesticide, heavily used by sugar cane
growers, for months.
 
==================
 
Government subsidies to the 11,000 US mohair producers under the
1954 National Wool Act were limited to $200,000 apiece in 1991, and
will be limited to $125,000 by 1994.
 
========================
 
The Arizona Cattle Growers' Assn has dropped opposition to
reintroducing Mexican grey wolves to the wild, providing that the
USFWS and USDA maintain strict controls against predation on
livestock, that ranchers be reimbursed for any predation, and that
the wolves be designated as experimental population, not strictly
protected by the Endangered Species Act.  The first release is
tentatively scheduled for 1994.
 
 From: Animals Agenda - PO Box 345
 Monroe, CT 06468.  Issue: 11/91
 
 < AmNet News Service PO Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO  80525 >
  << BBS: 303-223-1297 * New York City node 212-724-6826 >>
   <<< Fax: 303-225-0919 FIDO: FTC 306/12  NYC 278/716 >>>
  
--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!306!12!Amnet.News.Service
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: larryd@milton.u.washington.edu (Larry Desoto)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 05:13:17 GMT

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

[ ... wow ...]

>If ever you get over your basic cowardice and foolishly decide to challenge
>me, just give me a call.  My number is in the book.  If would give me
>something to do besides sit here trying to find a way to penetrate into the
>iota of brain tissue inside the sponge that must fill your skull.

This is Mr. I don't believe in violence, lets love everything?  Dreamer
has some rather serious problems.  

It's funny how the idealists who are so sure they are right are so ready
to commit acts of violence against all the rest of us who don't agree
with them.  They justify their violence by claiming moral superiority 
because they are answering to a higher level of conscience.  He sounds
just like that bunch of Earth Firster's posting in another group a while
back.  Violence is good because we are right.

--
Larry                                   |   Thunder makes all the noise;
                                        |   lightning gets the job done.
larryd@milton.washington.edu
I have my opinion; the university has its own.
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 21 Aug 1992 20:46:01 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BtAqBn.IxL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:


>From article <BtA3y2.JsE@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jona
pp 136-147.   Mowat and Mech (I believe) make similar observations.

>js> Yup. And the same goes for hawks, they are sight hunters. Now where has
>js> this line got us? Aha, predators prefer an easy meal if they can manage
>js> it, but if they have to work for their supper, well that's part of the
>js> game of survival, is that it?

>The fact remains that the predation of a wolf in bringing down an 
>aging or diseased animal is quite a bit different from the predation
>of a human in gunning down a healthy animal in the prime of life.  The
>notion that the human and the wolf are "working for their supper" seems 
>simplistic to me.

Since a hawk obviously does not hunt by the same "rules" of nature than 
that of a wolf and you consider both to be ethically right in their actions,
why would you insist that man should not hunt in the manner that he does.

The hawk doesn't select only sick or weak animals.  The wolf apparantly does
for the most part because of it's limitations.  If man is capable of hunting
healthy animals why is that wrong in your opinion if the hawk is not wrong
for doing the same thing?

As I recall there was a thread not long ago in which the ARs were complain-
ing that man was using an unfair advantage by using high powered rifles. 
But, if we were to use more primitive methods that might limit our ability
to select big or healthy animals, the kills would be less efficient and 
the pain and suffering to the animals would be greater.  It would appear that
there is no way to make the ARs happy short of not hunting.  Since that is
not an option in my opinion, I think maybe the ARs should try to realize 
that man's hunting is no less "natural" than any other predator IMHO.

 
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan






Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:48:30 GMT

In <BtAp7I.I94@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Thank you for admitting that these deer are not truly dependent on 
>what nature provides.  You've described a group of animals that 
>are supposedly free from human interference and free from 
>handouts, yet they have human crops available for eating...  
>crops that are typically higher in fat and protein than the brush 
>material that deer would typically eat.  

	Not that it makes a whole lot of difference, Russ.  The
area is extended, but wouldn't the same natural controls you
have mentioned before (namely fat content of the deer) still work?

>True.  And the adjacent cropland will only support so many deer.  When
>the supplies are exhausted, however, fertility will decline as fat
>tissue falls below a certain point.

	My point exactly, but you seem to be overlooking...

>You're promoting one half-truth as a substitute for another 
>half-truth.  Animal populations are, indeed, self-regulating.  And 
>animal populations will, indeed, expand their range if given the 
>opportunity to do so.  Your example demonstrates that the 
>creation and protection of stable, natural ecosystems isn't an 
>easy task when the areas in question are surrounding by man-made 
>environments like farms.  

	Even if there were no farms, and no crops other than the
natural forage normally available, doesn't this say that the
deer would populate until starvation rears its head, at which
time the birth rate would drop?  I see your argument as saying
that a given herd will populate until it is in perfect harmony
witht he food supply, and then fertility drops will keep things
at that level.  I note nothing showing starvation as a means of
also controlling this population.  You're telling the truth, Russ,
but I find a serious lack of certain unpalatable portions that
I consider less humane than hunting -- namely starvation.  I do
wonder why you've left his part out.  Either it does happen or
it doesn't, and this seems to be what culling a herd is based
on -- the idea that culling involves less suffering than the
starvation that would result.  So tell us, will starvation happen,
or will the deer just happily frolick and fornicate, secure in
the knowledge that no fawns will be born unless the habitat
can support them along with the rest of the herd?

<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. >
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 22 Aug 92 17:28:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:49:49 GMT

In article <BtCvF3.2ot@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Aug21121811@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> When a clearly anti-hunting organization resorts to hunting or 
   tr> similar culling, the only logical conclusion is that culling is 
   tr> the only feasible mechanism to control populations without other 
   tr> natural predators.  

   Is this the only logical conclusion?  Of course not.  Here are 
   four more possibilities that quickly come to mind: 

   1) A fence would be too expensive to erect and maintain;

Many hunting resorts have fences enclosing thousands of acres.  It
seems AR folks are asking folks to pay a very high price that they are
unwilling to pay themselves.

   2) A fence would be affordable, but not magically effective in
      reducing overpopulation already caused by encroachments of
      the deer on the surrounding terrain;

But you have claimed such magical effectiveness.  If the area is large
enough (which it seems to be based on posted desciptions), your
self-regulating idea should work "magically".

   3) The LACS is unaware of the research showing that fertility
      is controlled by fat tissue.

Perhaps they have not read the specific articles you have but most AR
folks think animals are not effected by unnatural environments such as
those without predators.  They tried to let them control their own
numbers and it did not work.

   4) The LACS is aware of the relationship between fertility and
      fat, and the relationship between food and fat, but still 
      believe that it's somehow wrong to arrange things so that
      deer end up on subsistence diets.  [Note that many humans make
      no distinction between hunger and starvation]

Perhaps they realized that some predation was quite natural.


   Please read the article I cited previously if you wish to continue
   the discussion:  Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility. _Scientific
   American, March, 1988.  It's written in a clear lucid prose and
   well documented.  

It seems quite reasonable that reduced food will decrease fertility.
Our disagreement is whether such a decrease would be enough to balance
the population.  There are numerous example where deer have destroyed
small islands and were ravaged by disease when there was no natural
predation.  If they were able to self-regulate, such situations would
not happen.  To answer your coming question, I will look for
documentation of such situations.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 11:49:43 GMT

In <Bt1ro9.Jow@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>[ re: the relevance of sentience and sapience ]
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> To illustrate my point: would a brain-dead comatose human give
>rl> two hoots if you were to shoot him squarely in the foot?  Probably
>rl> not, since brain-dead men are neither sentient nor likely to
>rl> become sentient in the future.
>
>From article <1992Aug15.171902.25559@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
>ry> The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
>ry> he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
>ry> ceased to function.  This is a "red herring".
>
>You've been pretending that "life" is meaningful in-itself and 
>that "sentience" is an arbitrary quality, ....

   It would seem that I haven't been completely successful in explaining
   my points.  The mere existence of sapience does not make that process
   inherently important to the cosmos in general.

   In addition, had you gone just a few lines further in my last posting,
   you might have seen the sentence where I said that my belief is NOT that
   "sentience is arbitrary", but that the assignment of evolutionary worth
   or status BASED on "sentience" is arbitrary.

>.....but you turn around 
>and tell us that a living organism is "dead" simply because it's 
>no longer sentient.  Why would it matter whether a man's "sensory 
>processing center" has ceased to function if sentience and sapience
>aren't the primary essence of meaningful existence?

   Here, the issue is being confused again, and the term "meaningful"
   is thrust upon us once more.  What IS "meaningful"?

   As for the imagined contradiction you wish to clarify, the loss of
   the "sensory processing center" precludes the unaided existence of the
   organism, as would failure of liver, kidneys, or heart.  The "brain-dead"
   individual is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion, since the
   existence of that individual as a self-sufficient example of the species
   has ended.  The fact that the failed organ is also the center of sapience
   does not matter.

-Rich Young (my opinions, not Kodak's)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Blatant lies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:43:28 GMT


Mike Linan writes:
ml> Did I or did I not specifically tell you I believe in "GOBLINS" or 
ml> "GODDESSES" as you said I did?   Does it matter to *anyone* whether you
ml> consider them to have primitive minds?

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Did I specifically say that you believe in goblins or goddesses?  Please
rl> cite the original passage.

In article <16uga4INNr6o@agate.berkeley.edu>, Mike Linan writes:
ml> Nice game you got going there Russell.  It's okay because I and 
ml> at least a few others know what you said and what you are and 
ml> that you are the one who saves everything that goes through 
ml> t.p.a.  You can run but, you can't hide.  

I'm sure that everyone with brains will realize that an archive 
of personal postings won't permit a usenet contributor to
prove that he didn't say something that he didn't say.  Yet, 
you seem to have a tough time coming to grips with the fact that 
it's impossible to prove a negative proposition. 

Pardon me for reminding you of your terrifying homophobia, but
let's suppose you had a diary of your daily activities going
all the way back to nursery school.  Would such a diary prove 
that you've never molested little boys?   

[Sidenote to persons with two-digit IQ's:  No, I'm not saying
or implying that Mike Linan is a child-molestor, nor am I saying
or implying that I'm a child-molestor.] 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:35:03 GMT

>
>Why would it be "ok" for cougars to violently fight over the 
>right to select a particular mate, but not ok for humans to do 
>so?  Or, for that matter, why would it be "ok" for a volcanic 
>eruption to decimate a small town, but not ok for a human tyrant to 
>wreak similar destruction?  
>

The competition for mates is still with us, it's just (usually) more subtle.
Decimation of a small town or even a large city has been deemed "ok" by 
society as a whole at various times in our history. Ever heard of Dresden,
Berlin, Hiroshima? I am sure the allied forces were the tyrants in the eyes
of the victims. However, winners write the history books. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:45:17 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Why would it be "ok" for cougars to violently fight over the 
rl> right to select a particular mate, but not ok for humans to do 
rl> so?  Or, for that matter, why would it be "ok" for a volcanic 
rl> eruption to decimate a small town, but not ok for a human tyrant to 
rl> wreak similar destruction?  

From article <1992Aug19.173503.23618@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> The competition for mates is still with us, it's just (usually) 
ja> more subtle.  Decimation of a small town or even a large city has 
ja> been deemed "ok" by society as a whole at various times in our 
ja> history.  Ever heard of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima?  I am sure the 
ja> allied forces were the tyrants in the eyes of the victims.  
ja> However, winners write the history books.  

And conscientious, modern historians do their best to bare all the
facts and reasons.  (Witness Vietnam)

The fact remains that we can't wisely excuse ourselves from evaluating 
the pros and cons of an action by pointing to someone else's conduct.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: They're coming for Ronald and you too...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:30:11 GMT

     First they came for the deer,
           and I did not speak up, for I am not a deer.
     Then they came for the black bears,
           and I did not speak up, for I am not a black bear.
     Then they came for the cattle,
           and I did not speak up, for I am not a cow.
     Then they came for the hogs,
           and I did not speak up, for I am not a pig. 
     And then they came for me,
           and there was no one left to speak up.

                      - A humane human


"It seems to me I've seen scary words like these somewhere before...."
               -  John S. Van Etten     

Rob U, life is definitely worth living
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Now is the time when men work quietly in the fields and women       -
-      weep softly in the kitchen; the legislature is in session and       -
-      no man's property is safe."            -Daniel Webster-             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:41:49 GMT

In response to David Caruso II's post about being a poor marksman and
about shooting Rover, Tim Rigg writes:

>If one is not a good marksman, one should not hunt!  I favor manditory
>testing for hunting licenses, especially bowhunters.  There are too
>many weekend warriors causing problems for responsible hunters.

Let me offer a strong second to Tim's words.  A poor marksman belongs
at the range, *not* in the woods.  NY has no marksmanship testing as
part of the mandatory Hunter Safety Course, although each participant
is required to fire both a rimfire (.22) rifle and a smallbore shotgun
(.410 or 20-ga.) at a target.  Participants are *not* allowed to bring
their own weapons for liability reasons, and as such there is little
use in testing accuracy of a shooter that is firing an unfamiliar gun.
As far as I know, since I'm not a bowhunter, the test for getting a
bowhunting license in NY does indeed require marksmanship, since
particpants are required to bring their own bows.
     As a side note, I personally enforce such things among my own
hunting party, despite the ill feeling it sometimes causes (but hey,
if they don't like it, they don't have to hunt with me).  I will also
supply a gun and just about any amount of ammo needed so that the
person feels comfortable with that gun before entering the woods (a
lot of the people I hunt with can't afford their own guns and have to
borrow one of mine).  I would *never* let anyone go into the deer
woods with a rifle they've never fired, even if the gun was sighted in
by me and the hunter is a very good marksman.  I still make them poke
a few shots through it to make sure they are used to it.  *Before* the
hunt.


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