HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: California Condor and hunters
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 13:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.151010.14946@zooid.guild.org> rwaigh@zooid.UUCP (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>

[Stuff deleted]

>I am getting tired of this stereotype of all Animal Rights activities being
>"terrorist".  Personally, I am a member of only one group, which is very
>emphatic about supporting only non-violent legal activities.  Of course the
>non-violent, legal activities aren't likely to become front-page news, which
>is why you don't hear about them.
>
>Ro
>rwaigh@zooid.guild.org

And I, as an ethical hunter, am tired of many/all other ethical hunters 
being stereotyped as slobs/poachers because a few braindead idiots with a 
gun happens to shoot a condor/eagle/hawk or what have you. This type of
behavior is abhorrent and very disgusting. If ever I hear of such an
incident by any individual, rest assured I will turn their sorry ass in
to the proper authorities. Likewise, I would expect nothing less from the
animal rights faction to turn in individuals who were responsible for 
"terrorists" acts to "further" their cause. You see, my point here is that
this is a two way street that we are on. This name calling goes both
ways. 

Keith


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |  Go Volunteers!   | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: coleman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michele Coleman)
Subject: Re: California Condor and hunters
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 23:13:08 GMT

   Please remove rec.food.veg from the distribution list.  This has nothing
to do with the topic of that newsgroup.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:06:45 GMT
Organization: WP Group

From article <1dmgs1INN1o4@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> First let me say that whether the Bible indicates Jesus ate meat or 
ml> not has no real relevance to whether hunting and/or eating animals is
ml> moral to Christians since it has already been proven it is according to
ml> the Christian faith.

So you say.  Let's not forget that medieval and renaissance clerics 
also proved that witch-killing was also mandated by the christian
faith.   Or maybe not.

ml> With that said, let me provide the passages that *do* indicate Jesus ate
ml> meat.  In paticular, the passages indicate he ate lamb.
ml> 
ml> In Exodus, chapter 12 (read the whole thing), the passover is descibed
ml> and what is eaten during the passover.  The meal includes lamb.

Right.   And let's not forget the words to live by that are
found further on, in Exodus 22:18: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
to live".

ml> Then, in Matthew, chapter 26 Jesus is quoted when instructing the disciples
ml> to prepare the passover and that he and they would eat the passover (lamb).

Does it really say this?

-- 
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: (none)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 20:19:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <9211121952.AA01833@service> gregb@service.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
>The recent thread on whether hunting has impacted wildlife populations has
>been interesting. From the discussion, I would conclude that it has 
>affected some, but not others.  I think a more interesting question is what
>has been the impact of "modern" game management practices?  

>But I think a stronger case against hunting can be made on the grounds of
>morals and ethics.  Hunting today amounts to "killing for fun."  Less than
>2% of hunting qualifies as subsistence hunting.  


Says who Greg?  That there are options to hunting for ones meat does not
mean it is unnecessary.  I eat what I kill and I am sure the majority of
hunters do the same.  When I am eating game, I am not eating store bought
meat which shoppers essentially have paid to be killed for them.  I wouldn't
call hunting "killing for fun" because there is no fun in killing but rather
a sense of appreciation for the life of the animals that it has just lost 
for me to eat and a sense of accomplishment because contrary to popular 
belief, successful hunting demands skill.


>Survey research consistently supports the finding that killing of the
>animal is only one part of the total hunting experience.  Being outdoors, being
>with friends, enjoying the scenery, etc. consistently rank above or on par with
>the killing experience.  In other words, there are alternative activities
>that can replace hunting.

This is true.  I have a good time regardless as to whether I fill my tag,
limit or whatever but, I am there to hunt and if I am unsuccessful, there 
is a certain amount of disappointment.  For those who love hunting and all
that that entails, there absolutely is no replacement.


>As such, hunting is a blood "sport" that will (hopefully) fade as we as a
>species expand our ethics to include others.


It certainly will fade when there are so freaking many people on this planet
that there is no habitat left for animals.

>Greg Brown   

>"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way
>it treats its animals"
>                 Ghandi

Perhaps, but this is just the opinion of a man.  Nothing more but an opinion.


Mike Linan





Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: California Condor and hunters
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 02:14:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Nov05.155003.1520@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>Now, to address the quote above - yes, some cranes have been shot mistakenly
>by sport hunters.  No, not because they thought they were snow geese, but 
>because they were mistaken for sandhill cranes, which are LEGAL to hunt.  You
>have completely left out the fact that the hunters then *turned themselves
>in* for shooting the cranes in each case.

Yes the first incident I know was self-reported. But the hunter did claim to
have mistaken the Whooper for a Snow Goose. No, Texas doesn't have an open
season on Sandhill Cranes (I wasn't aware any states did). Sandhill Cranes
are considered an endangered species in Texas. The second incident involving
two Whoopers was not self-reported.

I found out yesterday that last year someone attempted to shoot one of the
two captive-bred California Condors released last year. Hunters, directly
and indirectly (through lead in carcasses) are the biggest threat to the
Condor's recovery (but not the only threat one of the Condors died last
week apparently poisoned by drinking spilled ani-freeze).

>The whooping cranes are so over-studied right now that the biologists know
>each bird like a friend. If one turns up missing, they launch a search party.

Whooping Cranes are heavily studied but the factors influencing their numbers
are not yet understood. Individuals do disappear particularly during their
2800km migration. Search parties are impractical.

>How much guilt do you bear, supporting and financing the terrorist acts
>of the Animal Rights Movement?

My only contact with the animal rights movement has been identifying for
them the dead and injured birds (many protected, some endangered) that
hunters leave behind (and helping them retrieve such birds).

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:24:33 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>Van E., I didn't ASK you whether you felt responsible for
>poachers...

	And I didn't ask you if you felt responsible for your
ancestors owning slaves.  While I grant that I have not read all
the posts on this group as of yet, I note that the comparison you
draw is used to place blame on a much of the population as possible
while only being perpetrated by a very small minority.  One might
just as well demand that blacks not be allowed to reproduce because
black males tend to shoot each other more often than white males.

	it is, in short, not only tangent but ridiculous.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Was Jesus a carnivore?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:25:59 GMT

In article <Bwur1G.2w6@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Karleenus Schwartz Davis writes:
>ks> Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?
>
>From article <viking.720265251@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Jesus is never known to even *smile* in the Bible.  Given
>ds> such poor resources, I suggest that such religous one-upmanship be
>ds> taken to e-mail.  
>
>And I'd recommend that persons who have an interest in such questions
>continue to discuss them publicly.  
Russell tactic 102:  Divert the opposition into a debate on religion.
[Notice that now there is greater awareness of this tactic, and the
initial request is to move the discussion to email rather than get
sucked into this one.]
>
>ds> The rest of us already know our religous beliefs,
>ds> and if we have serious doubts on a particular point there are others
>ds> who are more adept and qualified and answering them then you or I.
>
>The bible is a finite resource, Dan.   It doesn't take a theological
>genius to answer the question:
>
>         Is Jesus ever seen to eat meat in the Bible?
>
>Does the answer intimidate you in some way?
>
Jesus was never seen to use the latrine in the Bible either, thus
convincingly making the case that he was a superhuman GOD.
[Same logic as "he didn't eat meat, so he must be vegetarian"]
>-- 
Mary Otto
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research.  Was Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:18:34 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

Robert : 
>What I'm suggesting is that if you want to KNOW whether a treatment or
>procedure applies to humans, you first must TRY it on humans.


iDo you have any idea how many humans would die if treatment were first
tried on them?
>
>>I will admit that the response of some animals to some
>>pharmaceuticals is not indicative of human response to the same compounds.
>>However, the similarities by far at weigh the differences particularly if
>>the right animal system is choosen.  The number of instances were animal
>>research has lead to positive results and the application of those reults
>>to humans has been detrimental are minuscule compared to the number of
>>times animal models have correctly predicted human responses.  
>
>Could you be more specific?

How specific do you want me to be?  I don't have the time to list all of
the steps in the crebs cycle, most of the steps in metabolic uptake and
release of compounds, nor the morphometric and chemical component of
tissue.  Making an educated guess, and if the correct subject is choosen
for the study, I estimate 95%. 
>
>>not a good indicatio
>
>Is this a typo or did some data get dropped in transmission?

Typo

                          Greg Popken
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expessed here are my own.   *   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       *   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  *   end of the page.
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:05:32 GMT
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company

In article <1992Nov11.181908.19171@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
> Todd H. writes:
>
>>Apparently we agree - poacher's aren't hunters, ...

Since we're all against poachers, I thought I'd post this from the
October 1992 issue of FIELD & STREAM:

	National Anti-Poaching Foundation
	Dept. FS
	P.O. Box 173
	Colorado Springs, Colo. 80901
	phone: (719) 382-7505

I don't know anything about this organization other than what's in the
magazine, but I'm planning to request information.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Using lab animals for flea-breeding
Date: 8 Nov 92 13:50:03 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 7 Nov 1992 00:01:35 GMT

In article <1df10vINNis@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

   It turns out that there is a great demand for fleas
   for use in research.  There isn't any really good way of
   breeding fleas other than on a host.

   [lots deleted]

   If there's any flea-researchers out there on the net, I'd like
   to hear why you think you should be allowed to exist.

I am not a "flea-researcher".  However, it is obvious that the
suffering of a few cats to breed fleas will eliminate or reduce the
suffering of countless other cats (and dogs).  

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: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:12:57 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>Since we're all against poachers, I thought I'd post this from the
>October 1992 issue of FIELD & STREAM:
>
>	National Anti-Poaching Foundation
>	Dept. FS
>	P.O. Box 173
>	Colorado Springs, Colo. 80901
>	phone: (719) 382-7505

Bob, I think we should also mention that if anyone observes a poacher
here in New York State, he or she should contact the DEC hotline at
1-800-TIPP-DEC.  It won't even cost a dime to turn the bastard in. :-)


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: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:53:54 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

`1. All animals, human or otherwise, are evacuated from the building prior to 
`setting the fire.
`2. The location is isolated so that secondary fires aren't a concern.
`3. The fire department is notified of item 1, so they don't take any risks to 
`try to save a life.

`In this case, the violence is inflicted only on property.

Here in Michigan, the MSU Mink research lab was burned in just such a manner
as you described.  I must argue that "just property" was dammaged.  In an
amongst that "property" was quite a few people's life's work.  Not to mention
50 years of research that is now completely burned up and wasted that must
have cost at least a few lives of mink to obtain.  So now the sacrifice of
those mink is wasted as well.

Regardless of 'what' is destroyed, I still do not think violent or destructive
forms of civil disobedience are justifyable....

swood
-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:26:28 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1dqg7eINN3jq@agate.berkeley.edu>, timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim 
Ikeda) writes:

>My ethical system leads me to conclude that violent political protest
>(defined here as violent actions intended to attract public awareness),
>is unacceptible regardless of intent or goal.

 
What would you say about violent non-political actions (where attracting 
public awareness is secondary to a more immediate effect)? For example, 
spiking trees is not designed for political purposes, but is designed to 
protect a forest.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Violent protest
Date: 11 Nov 1992 08:28:30 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

Actually, I started this thread with a narrower scope:

>My ethical system leads me to conclude that violent political protest
>(defined here as violent actions intended to attract public awareness),
>is unacceptible regardless of intent or goal.

The case I was making was that I have encountered no "real-life"
situations wherein I have had to change this conclusion.
I accept that this is a generalization, albeit a very accurate one.
Is exception possible, at least hypothetically?  Sure it is possible.
However, in  reading the first "AR prisoner's..." posting, I do not find
the particular cases described to be exceptional.  Overall, I do not feel
that violent acts committed for the sake of advertisement or exposure
are generally capable of justification.


This is different from the Ted Robinson's broader, current form:
>1. Is it ever reasonable to use violence in the pursuit of social change?
>2. Are AR goals "right" enough as to justify the use of violence, per #1.

For which I would answer:
#1:  Yes. "War" is social change.
#2:  The "goals" are too undefined for even a generalized answer. It's
equivalent to asking: "Are an individual's interests sufficient
to justify violence?"  The problem is, which "goals" or "interests?"
If we thought long enough, and played around with what acts come under
the heading of "violence", I'm sure some hypothetical case could
be constructed to produce sufficient justification. (See note below)

If, however, the first question was restated along the lines of
my original and narrower point, then my answer would be:
#1:  No.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda


General note: (not to Ted or any specific person)
I'm not particularly interested in trapping people in small points
of semantics or issues of style (ie. "never" vs. "practically never").
Nor do I want to waste my or anyone else's time bickering
over minor details (ie. "Poachers" are a subset of the superset of
"hunters."  Therefore, not all hunters are poachers.  End of story).
A lot of talk seems to get wasted and a lot of otherwise interesting
discussion seems to muddled in t.p.a. because of petty arguments
over the "small stuff."  Baiting and selective editing are also
rampant - none of which contributes one iota to a thread.  This
is just a forewarning that I'm not going to descend to that level
in my responses and I'm not going to tolerate it in posts directed
towards me.

One last favor I'd like to ask:
When making a reply to one of my points, I'd appreciate
having entire paragraph reposted.  This reduces the chance for
later misinterpretation. I try to write in bite-sized segments to
make this easier to do.
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:42:34 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[Russ's usual B.S. and hype deleted]

`-- that Jane Fonda was a "traitor" in the fight against world communism
`-- that you disapprove of government support for health care
`-- that you consider anyone who voted for Bill Clinton to be a "loonie" 

For the sake of going on record, just wanted to point out on the net,
as I have gotten a few replies and requests for more information, these
quotes were in fact taken from various email discussion which Russell and
I held shortly after my accusitions that much of Russell's posts belonged
in email instead of on a public net.

In fact these quotes (though they are in fact badly worded versions of some
of my opinions) are mine and I have nothing to hide.  However I would like
to point out that Russell not only posted them to this public forum without
my expressed permission, but did so in direct contradiction to my stating that
in fact I did not want them posted here AT ALL.

I made a quick response to Russell asking him to not do so again and got
nothing but an arrogant self-righteous reply, showing that he seems that he
is untoucheable as far as this net is concerned.  As I result, I am fed up
at his games, his tactics and his disregard for the sanctity and
responsibility involved in the use and application of a public network.
I have forwarded mail to the systems responsible for handling his mail
in regards to this incedent so as I may have the event on record with
them.  Whether they wish to take it further is up to their discretion.
I would suggest that any others that find such activities in direct
violation of net etiquette from this user also go on record to those
organizations handling his messages.

I understand that in the past, I myself have in fact been involved in
a matter concerning the posting of mail messages, but I would like to point
out that:

	1) I did not post something that was implicity requested by
	   the user not to be.
	2) Immediately wrote an apology when the user expressed concern
	   with my post.
	3) Immediately cancelled the related article.

I use these as examples of responsible use of the net.  We all make mistakes
and none of us are perfect.  It is my opinion that Russell's self-indignant
quest to be so [perfect] is costing this net and this group a fair share of
its integrity and my eventually cost its priviledge to charter.

swood
-- 
  Nov. 08   Closing day of Duck/Waterfowl season (upper L.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 11   Closing day of Michigan Quail hunting
  Nov. 12   Closing day of early Waterfowl season (lower L.P.)
 Currently  Rabbit, squirrel and bird season are still alive and well!