HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: The Moment of The Kill (Part II)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:54:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


"...killing is not the exclusive purpose of hunting. There are
kinds of hunting that consist in 'bringing the animal back
alive', and the early men who domesticated animals tried to take
them without killing them.

Furthermore,...progress in weapons is foreign to the essence of
hunting, that reason is not a primary ingredient of it, since
hunting cannot substantially progress. This is so true that
hardly had the weapon been perfected when all urgency for putting
an end to an animal, by whatever means, disappeared--that is to
say, hunting became a sport. And since then, as the weapon became
more and more effective, man imposed more and more limitations on
himself as the animal's rival in order to leave it free to
practice its wily defenses, in order to avoid making the prey and
the hunter excessively unequal, as if passing beyond a certain
limit in that relationship might annihilate the essential
character of the hunt, transforming it into pure killing and
destruction. Hence the confrontation between man and animal has a
precise boundary beyond which hunting ceases to be hunting, just
at the point where man lets loose his immense technical
superiority--that is, rational superiority--over the animal.  The
fisherman who poisons the mountain brook to annihilate suddenly,
all at once, the trout swimming in it, ipso facto ceases to be a
hunter.

...To exterminate or to destroy animals by an invincible and
automatic procedure in not hunting. Hunting is something else,
something more delicate."


Jose Ortega y Gasset. 1985. "Meditations on Hunting". Charles
Scribner's Sons. New York. pp.45-46.

[Originally written in Lisbon in 1942 as a prologue to Venite
anos de caza mayor (Twenty years a big-game hunter) by Count
Yebes Edward]
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Long-range hunting. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:15:25 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:

[munch munch]

>It also depends on the shot in question.  I hunt with one of the most 
>accurate factory made bolt action rifles on the market.  It is chambered 
>for 30-06 has a 2-7X variable scope.  I would have no problems taking a shot 
>at a stationary animal that was standing broadside to me at a distance of, 
>say, around 400 yards provided I could get set up with a very stable rest and 
>get into a comfortable shoting position.  If I had to shoot offhand, using 
>only my sling as a stabilizer, I'd feel uncomfortable shooting out to much 
>more than about 100 yards, but that doesn't mean no one else should.  Know 
>your limits and stay within them.

Just for interest's sake, the professional stalkers in Scotland often
shoot the hinds freehand (snap shooting) at ranges out to 400 yards or
so. During the cull, there often isn't time to stalk in real close. And
since the stalker's are more than competant, there isn't a need to do so
either. But when they are guiding a paying guest (ie not a professional)
they stalker will try to get his guest to under 100 yards if possible.
Where to draw the line depends on the person's skills and abilities.

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:19:43 GMT

In article <Bt5toz.MtI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>I'd say that nature is harsh, but not cruel.
>
>My major problem with human predation is that it makes no distinctions
>between unfit animals and healthy ones, and thereby upsets the balance
>of forces that would otherwise exist in nature.  It seems to me
>that there's a kind of justice at work when wolves bring down an
>animal that's dying of old age or disease, and hence, unable or
>unwilling to defend himself.  On the other hand, I don't see much
>justice at all when a hunter shoots down a healthy stag in the
>prime of life from 100 yards away.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

Some people accuse you of weaseling out of answering tough questions, offering
questions in response to questions, not reading to learn; however, the above
statement is definitive.  I appreciate that.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you
posit a conception of nature that does not include people.  As observer, as
appreciator, but not as predator.  If, contrary, nature does include people,
people hunting--then what is the upset to the "balance of forces that would
otherwise exist in nature"?

Do you believe that as mankind hunted in the ancient hunting and gathering
era he was a prey animal such as the wolf, preying on the diseased and sick?
This is what I understand you would say.  Presumably, you would argue
that modern armaments permit hunters to shift the "balance of nature" in an
unnatural manner due to the newfound ability to select healthy specimens.  Is
this what you're getting at?

>
>Why is it ok for wolves and mountain lions to kill a caribou and eat it,
>but not for man? Are we not also part of the natural order?
>
>Jeff Achenbach
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
>

Basically, I'm asking the same question as Jeff's above, addressed initially
I believe to small "t" ted.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: hunting phenomenology
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:14:29 GMT

>
>What a well-written statement of SOME of what one can experience by being
>out in nature!  For the bulk of this worthy experience one does
>NOT need to be hunting.  Indeed, it is a vicious profanity that is
>voiced by this "word spoken out loud".  Yes, the caribou is a Being
>in itself that simply "is" but which the hunter callously disregards
>and voids so that the living beauty and honest presence of the caribou
>becomes no more.  The bullet or arrow is not the soft voice of compassion
>and humble regard; it is rather the deafening shout, the shrill
>imprecation of one who would tear apart the live flesh of this marvelous
>caribou, a Being who is reduced to a mere target made of meat.
>

Why is it ok for wolves and mountain lions to kill a caribou and eat it,
but not for man? Are we not also part of the natural order? The caribou 
will die sooner or later. If it's a mature animal that has bred and perpetuated
it's species, it has served it's first purpose in life. It will eventually 
be food for something, either a predator or a scavenger if it dies of natural
causes.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:10:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.193748.42361@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:


James Hoskins originally wrote:

>> I've been hooked up to this network for about 6 months now, and this is the
>> first time I've seen offered a challenge to another to a physical fight!

To which Dreamer responded:

>    Are you people really that stupid, or do you just see violence in
>everything?  Or is it both?  Of course, I believe physical fighting solves
>nothing.  But as I "hinted" (note: this word is used sarcasticly) at, in the
>paragraph above my "challenge," I would much prefer to vocally *debate* this
>issue rather than by postings.
>
>    Man ... unbelievable.
>


You really diminish yourself by your ranting and raving.  I thought that your
"Proposal for Peace" posting was a very good statement of where your're coming
from.  And then you start frothing at the mouth again.

Let's post your "fight challenge" article again and let people make up their
own minds:


********

In article <1992Aug13.212521.42344@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

Thank you, Kenneth, for your wonderful little story.  It was quite amusing and
quite stupid.  You certainly establish your credibility when you say my writing
is second-rate.

But you know, one thing confuses me.  All the adjectives you used to describe
me ... it would seem you imply that you know me quite well, when, indeed, all
you know are the things I've posted concerning animals rights ... a topic, no
doubt, we both feel very passionately about.

But the real me?  Never been to the woods?  Dog-killer?  Sniveling?  Weak?
Immature?  I'm impressed with your lack of intuition.

You know, if this were a vocal forum, I'm smear your sorry rhetoric all over
the wall and snap you back so fast you're puny neanderthal head would spin.
Luckily, you can *read* my words, and interpret the tone of them in any way you
see fit -- bias or unbiased.  If we were truly debating this, in a spontaneous
forum, where we could both address each other's points, and cater our offense
to effectively deal with each other's specific arguments and personality, I
could stomp on you like you do to the ants that cross your path.  Mentally,
I believe this to be a fair analogy.  Physically, you may have the strength of
a gorilla, and the forehead to match, but I'm not exactly a skinny pale-faced
computer nerd with the dexterity of a bowling ball and a fear of the dark.
Heh heh ... not hardly.

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.


******
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:49:29 GMT
	<1992Aug10.221449.29892@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1992Aug11.153140.42266@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu's message of 11 Aug 92 15:31:39 CDT

In article <1992Aug11.153140.42266@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

   > I enjoy your writing.  Could you tell me your reaction to people
   > you know who purchase pre-killed meat from the supermarket?

	   I would speculate that most of such people are not
   emotionally aware of the actual killing. ...

I have heard this argument several times in regard to this questions
and it strikes me as completely ridiculous.  It sounds like "people
hte buy pre-killed meat don't really know an animal was killed".  Of
course they do!  I have several non-hunters friends that are omnivours
and are well aware of this debate.  They know that their steak used to
be a cow but they just don't buy that killing animals and using them
for meat is wrong.

Give folks a bit more credit.  If it was that simple, why wouldn't a
quick trip to a farm stop all (nonhunting) meat eating?

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:49:49 GMT

In article <d2KS02Wb1eTG01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
tr> More to the point: lacking an enclosure to contain the deer 
tr> (which would've forced them to live off their "own" land), 
tr> Russell's self-regulation mechanism wouldn't have been invoked, 
tr> so the situation provides no insight as to the validity of this 
tr> mechanism.  

From article <RIGG.92Aug21121811@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> I think it provides significant insight.  It is reasonable to 
tr> assume that the League Against Cruel Sports is adamantly against 
tr> hunting or culling with guns.  Thus _if_ a fence would have 
tr> caused invoked "Russell's self-regulation mechanism", wouldn't 
tr> the LACS have chosen this alternative?  
tr> 
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;
2) A fence would be affordable, but not magically effective in
   reducing overpopulation already caused by encroachments of
   the deer on the surrounding terrain;
3) The LACS is unaware of the research showing that fertility
   is controlled by fat tissue.
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]

I've gotten quite a bit of correspondence on this issue from 
people who wanted to know if I had conjured up this idea.  It's 
reasonable for me to conclude, therefore, that quite a few 
readers of this newsgroup are unfamiliar with the biological 
principles at work here.   

That's not a problem, of course, since we're all here to exchange 
ideas and information.  However, with just two exceptions, Jeff 
Achenbach and Dan Sorenson, I've noticed that all of the hunters 
have been reluctant to come to grips with the scientific 
arguments...  perhaps because it conflicts with one of the most 
popular hunter myths.  

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.  

-- 
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: My dog
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:23:44 GMT

In article <d1UW020l1eUE01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <lxgyafl@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) 
>writes:
>> So it's OK for this dog to munch on rabbits and such despite the fact
>> that the owner is feeding it.
>
>What do you mean by "it's OK"? If you're asking whether or not the dog is 
>behaving ethically, I'd say the question is nonsensical - ethics apply to 
>humans and not to dogs. A dog can be neither ethical nor unethical. 
>

I would argue that because you are bringing this dog into this environment,
you are responsible for determining what is ethical behavior. The dog has no
need to kill (you feed him, right?) and does so indiscriminantly. By contrast,
hunting seasons are typically set for time periods when the young of the
species are mature enough to survive on their own. Stop acting like some
helpless pawn and take responsibility. It's the price you pay for being a 
rational being. You'll never be sure you've done the right thing in some vague
philosophical sense, but you certainly know what your legal/ ethical
obligations to your community are. They far outweigh any "rights" of the 
individual dog.

>Interesting question. Stray dogs and cats are often real grey areas for me 
>when discussing ethical issues. I'd have to think about this some more, 
>though I'd rephrase it to "is the human ethically obligated to try to prevent 
>his/her dog from attacking strays?"
> 

IMO strays deserve a home if possible, and if not a merciful death. Feral dogs
and cats do tremendous damage to wildlife and are generally not prepared for
a happy life in the wild. I have very strong feelings about what I'd like to
do to the people responsible for them. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:01:14 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
[munch munch]

>Why do wolves "test" their prey, instead of just diving in 
>willy-nilly? 

Obviously (dangerous statement, eh?) it's to avoid wasting effort on
abortive attacks, thereby improving the success rate.

Can you tell me why hawks *do* *not* test their quarry and *do* just
dive in willy-nilly, and yet they seem to do pretty well?

>Human hunters are just as likely to bring down healthy deer
>as sick ones...  perhaps even more likely, since humans are sight 
>hunters and sick deer often remain immobile in secluded, 
>hidden spots. [..]

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

--Jonathan
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rover stares down my barrel.
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:25:38 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Aug11.153140.42266@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
...
>	Hunters are different because they enjoy going out and actually taking 
>part in the killing of the animal.  I don't think most people would want to 
>be involved in this.  But let's not forget that the hunters are also not 
>sensitive to the healthy animals they shoot down.  They don't want to 
>understand or empathize with the animal, because they don't want to accept that
>animals are living, breathing, biological creatures who feel pain and fear and 
>who were born into this world the same way we were, and have a fundamental 
>right to live as they deserve.  Hunters are just selfish.  Their amusement is
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>what counts most.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well you're doin' a fine job of amusing us all I'm sure.  A truly fine job. 
 Hell, if this keeps up I'll be laughing so hard I won't be *able* to go 
hunting this year. :-)


-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:21:04 GMT

From article <16ou05INNnqo@agate.berkeley.edu>, by korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela):
ek> A hunter understands the death he is causing.  He is there to 
ek> experience it.  And maybe the hunter comes away with a larger 
ek> understanding of the death and the life that is going on around 
ek> him.  And a chance at understanding is much better than 
ek> self-imposed ignorance any day.  

This doesn't make much sense to me.  Are you saying that any action
is ethically justifiable if it results in a greater sense of 
understanding on the part of the perpetrator? 

Consider, for example, the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 
that were exposed by the NY Times in 1972.  As I recall, the 
Tuskegee experimenters had been studying the progressive effect 
of syphilis, from 1932 onward, among a group of black men 
who had been mislead into believing that they were getting 
effective medical treatment from the researchers, whereas in 
truth, they were getting an opportunity to serve as tools in a 
hideous experiment.  Would you say that anyone who's reluctant to 
misuse other individuals in such a way would be engaging in a
a kind of "self-imposed ignorance"?  Would it be acceptable for 
parties unknown to misuse Eric Korbela in some intrusive way in 
order to expand the horizons of their own knowledge?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ferris' Postings
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:13:21 GMT

In <5z6mvwr@dixie.com> refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom) writes:

>No, the point is that some of us are paying for our feeds, and would rather
>get a DISCUSSION, even one from Russell Lawrence, quoting every message in
>it's entirety since the invention of the microprocessor, rather than Ferrell's
>SIMPLE PROPAGANDA DISTRIBUTION.  If I want propaganda, I'll subscribe to
>AR-News-Request@Think.Com, or AR-Talk-Request@Think.Com.

>There's a place for everything, and the net isn't the place for someone to
>spit stuff to, just to get it out there and not come back and defend it.

	As a side note, let me point out that I've asked before for removing
text from previous articles if you can do so without changing the content
and context of the relevant information.  I say this because I've found
people who receive their feed over a 300 baud trans-oceanic link, some who
get it via packet radio, and many who pay for their time on-line.  Todd
points this out again.  Russell is a great one for long posts, I think,
but there are others.  Please, people, if you can trim it down do so.

<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: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: What would *you* have done?
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:25:33 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

Wow - tough situation. One approach might've been to first gush over how 
beautiful and well-behaved the dog was, and how it's amazing that it travels 
so well. In the process, compliment the family on having raised such a great 
dog and taking such good care of it, having the patience to include it on 
their trip, etc. They boys would probably be quite delighted to talk about 
their dog, and they're probably frequently quite nice to it. Then work into 
the conversation comments about how ineffective hitting is, how dogs can only 
hold it in for so long, etc. The idea here is to:
 
   1. Avoid putting them on the defensive.
   2. Leave them with a good feeling about the exchange.
   3. Help them create a self-image of being kind to their dog. Hopefully,
      their future actions will then conform to this self-image. People tend
      to meet the expectations set for them by themselves and others. You may
      worry that in doing so you're reinforcing their behavior, but I suspect
      that they already know that what they're doing is wrong.

Anyway, it sounds like you did a lot more than I would've done. My 
nervousness about confrontation would've probably kept me quiet, then several 
hours later I would've come up with lots of things I wished I'd said.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.