HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 23:44:49 GMT

   The following is taken from the September 1992 issue of American Rifleman
   magazine (which is at least as unbiased a source as Animal's Agenda which
   is so often quoted by Mr. Wheeler):

	   "Fund for Animals national director Wayne Pacelle, while advocating
	a ban on black bear hunting in Florida, recently admitted his
	organization's real goal is to ban all hunting nationwide.
	   During a live radio debate on May 19 with NRA Second Vice
	President Marion P. Hammer, Pacelle acknowledged that the number of
	black bears in Florida was a pretense for his organization to push
	its goal to ban all hunting -- period.
	   The West Palm Beach audience of Jack Cole's WJNO talk show suffered
	through Pacelle's emotional tirade against hunters and hunting
	before Hammer took charge of the debate and flushed out the real
	issue.  She forced Pacelle to reveal that Fund for Animals opposes
	the hunting of bear, deer, and all wildlife species throughout
	the nation.  Hammer reported the gist of the heated exchange with
	Pacelle as follows:

	HAMMER: Since we know that black bears are not endangered in Florida,
		and the Florida Game and Fish Commission reports that they
		are not even threatened, where in the state would Fund for
		Animals support hunting of black bear?

	PACELLE: Nowhere.

	HAMMER: Where would your organization support black bear hunting --
		anywhere in the U.S.?

	PACELLE: Nowhere.

	HAMMER: So the real agenda and goal of your organization is a total
		ban on all hunting everywhere?

	PACELLE: Yes.

	HAMMER: So all this debate about whether or not the black bear is
		threatened or endangered and the actual number of black
		bear we have in Florida is irrelevant, since the goal of 
		your organization is to ban all hunting everywhere?

	PACELLE: Yes, but we also oppose dog fights and cock fights.

	HAMMER: Wait a minute.  We're not talking about dog fights or cock
		fights.  We're talking about hunting, and I want everybody
		to pay attention and understand that all this emotional
		debate and rhetoric has nothing to do with black bears -- it
		is designed to help achieve a total ban of all hunting,
		period.

	COLE: Hey, I agree with Wayne [Pacelle].  I'm opposed to all hunting
		everywhere also.

	HAMMER: That's your choice, but the bottom line here is that Wayne
		has finally admitted that Fund for Animals is out to ban
		all hunting everywhere."


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Animal have no rights
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 02:09:24 GMT

In article <BuL3CL.Cxr@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <92Sep14.161805.34020@acs.ucalgary.ca>, by powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland):
>> Animals have no rights. Only PERSONS have rights. Human beings are
>> persons because they have the capacity to make moral
>> distinctions. Animals do not have the capacity to make moral
>> distinctions; therefore they are not persons.
>
>Your notion of personhood seems to be extremely limited.   Are you
>seriously suggesting that retarded humans and young children aren't
>persons if/when they lack the capacity to make "moral" distinctions?
>Distinctions between "good" and "bad" come in all flavors.  What 
>particular distinctions did you have in mind?

Furthermore, I wonder if Jim B. Powlesland thinks I'm still a person
if my morals are different than his? Lack of his morals may qualify
me as someone without morals, rather than someone with different morals.

This neatly brings up the Family Values ticket in the USA presidential
race. Notice how the Republicans have dropped the whole thing lately?
It's silly, and it's not working at all.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Testing
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:15:28 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

>Robert J Unglenieks writes:
>> According to Ciba-Geigy "of every 20 chemical compounds found safe and
>> therapeutically effective in animals tests, only one ever becomes a pre-
>> scription drug."  That's 1/20 found safe.  How many were unsafe and never
>> tried on humans. Imuran, myambutol, catapress, moban, meclazine, and coumarin
>> all fail the animal tests but work in humans.  How many other drugs get 
>> rejected without human trials?  And what of the drugs that are safe in
>> animals but are unsafe for humans?  Most don't put humans lower than animals,
>> but rank them as equal.  Aren't we animals?  It is sick and illogical to
>> think of animals as anything but living, breathing, feeling beings.

Christopher Morton writes:
>What's that got to do with animal testing?

Simple.  Is it ethical to use animals the way we do.... ?

>> Is it ethical to infect an animal with the AIDS virus, even though it can't
>> develop the disease, and keep it locked up for the rest of its life?
>
>Certainly.  Of course now you fudge a bit and forget your previous statement
>about "full blown AIDS".  Does the animal HAVE to develop full blown AIDS in
>order for something useful to be learned?  Do you even care?

Well, what conclusion can be drawn?  That a chimp is unable to develop AIDS.
So, if chimps are unable to develop the disease, why do we use them?  Is it
because they are so much like us?  If they are so much like us, is it ethical
to use a near human in tests where it will be locked in isolation for the
rest of its life?

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:33:54 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:



`legislators and demand to know where they stand.  If this legislation isn't
`passed, 100,000 more dolphins will die before 1999. To call your members of
`congress dial 202-224-3121 and ask for their office. Or write to them at:
` 
By who's statistics?  And how much of the dolphin population is that - ie
does it have a profound effect on the average population.  Mis-qouted or
out of context statistics can make anything sound like a noble cause (not
to say that this isn't).

Just out of curiousity, how many fishermen is this going to put out of
work and what means does this bill plan on using to save these dolphins?

` 
`Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-722-6455
` 
`Riverdale Mills Fur Farm Supply 1-800-762-6374
` 
`1-800-937-PORK
` 
`Write to:
` 
`Mayor Greg Lashutka
`90 West Broadway
`Columbus, OH  43215
` 
I am not sure of the legality of this - but be sure that I will check on it.
I have heard of such methods, and one campaign in particular that was solely
responsible for shutting down greenpeace's 800 number - there are two sides
to each fence remember....  (I chose to stay on the legal side)

`+ Wild horses are living symbols of America's strength and spirit. So
`precious are they to the soul of our country that in 1971 the United States
`Government passed an act which gave them protection under federal law. Since
`1971 wild horses have been given no protection at all. They have been shot,
`poisoned, rustled for slaughter from public lands and captured in the tens
`of thousands by a government charged with protecting them. The plight of
`America's horses is real.  Like the buffalo and the wolf before them, wild
`horses are departing the scene.  Your voice is needed to fight those who now
`run our public lands, America's ranchers.  If you would like to help, please
`call the Wild Horse Action line at 1-800-344-4785.
` 
Once again, I ask.  What are the circumstances of those being shot?  Keep
in mind that the wild horse is not a natural species on this continent.  Not
only that, but they tend to be formerly domesticated animals and thus can
be more harmful due to a lack of fear for humans.  I would ask to see what
kind of property destruction was being caused in each case - if not justified,
then you already stated that laws exist to protect the animals - use them.

swood

Putting People First - Clarkston, Mi. Chapter
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:41:27 GMT


From article <1992Sep11.150515.4447@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Apparently your pet program is broken.  Some of your 
th> (Russell/Linda) lines exceed 65 characters - some are up to 70 
th> characters long.  Also, some of your lines are very short, around 
th> 55 characters or so, with short words beginning the very next 
th> line.  This would mean that the reformatter would place the short 
th> words up one line to fill out to as near 65 characters as 
th> possible.  As this isn't happening, either your formatter is not 
th> working, or a fake.  

You're neglecting some alternatives, Todd.  Perhaps the user 
opted not to reformat a particular set of paragraphs, or the user 
may have invoked the program with a non-standard alternate line 
length.  Your willingness to maintain this pretense that you can 
identify persons by the average length of text lines in their 
postings tells us quite a bit about the way your mind works.  

If anyone gives credence to Todd's ranting, I'd invite them to 
spend a buck, call my company (it's listed in the phone book), 
and ask for Linda Guidry.  She'd be happy to reiterate her 
interest in Ferrell's postings, and may be willing to offer a few 
comments about her appraisal of Todd's intellectual abilities.

th> ... I'm off for the weekend to do some hunting, so the
th> newsgroup is yours, sir.

Perhaps your time would be better spent if you'd devote a few
weekends learning how to think critically.   As it is, it seems
to me that you're laboring with some major mental handicaps.

-- 
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: Re: Animal rights...again
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:31:02 GMT

w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu writes:
>Certainly, no rational being supports torturing an animal to death.  In that
>sense, yes, every living creature is entitled to certain "rights."  However,
>this is generally not what is meant by the phrase "animal rights".  Most
>AR groups are advancing the position that humans and animals are morally
>equivalent and that all animals are therefore entitled to all rights
>enjoyed by humans.  This is an important distinction.
>Jim Cook

Most groups I am aware of are not attempting to give animals human rights, i.e.,
the right to vote, the right to a representative government, the right to
keep and bear arms, etc.  They are working for rights that humans have (and all
animals should have) of the right to life, ethical treatment, etc.


Roob U, it is an important distinction......
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Meat eating and hunting
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:21:31
	<RIGG.92Sep14103509@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Sep14.184757.12159@spdc.ti.com>
In-reply-to: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.184757.12159@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
0
   In article <RIGG.92Sep14103509@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
   >No come on!  This is bull.  Are the exploding deer populations in
   >Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio also due to hunters
   >"reintroducing" them to those states?

   I don't know about those states in particular, but Pennsylvania was
   for all intents and purposes devoid of deer by about 1918. The
   present population is descended from Michigan deer imported at
   about that time period. It is one of the great successes of
   wildlife management that there are now more that a million
   whitetails in PA, due to the efforts and funding of the
   Pennsylvania Game Commission and dedicated hunters.

Do you have any more information about this.  I am wondering how many
Michigan deer would be needed to create a genetically viable
population.  It also seems likely than many deer "immigrated" from New
York, New Jersey, and Ohio.

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: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 13:50:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.020600.7611@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>In article <viking.716517741@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

[...]

>>	It could be that we simply believe animals to be quite good as
>>research subjects.  If you can name, and exhibit, a better specimen
>>you will be a *very* rich person in spite of saving animals.  Strike two.
>
>Wrong. Alternatives do exist, but they all cost significantly more.
>Worse, "prior results" all involve animals, and there's a tremendous
>inertia and reluctance to switch over to the non-animal alternative,
>because results will be difficult to correlate to prior research data.
>Again, this simply means more effort is necessary initially, hence
>requiring even more money.

[...]

   Please pardon my interruption, but I thought that the following might
   be applicable here.

   From SCIENCE NEWS: Vol. 142, No. 10, September 5, 1992 (quoted without
   permission):

	   "Scientists have developed the first animal model for cystic
	fibrosis (CF), a genetic disease that strikes one out of every
	2,000 babies born in the United States.  Two papers describing
	the research appear in the Aug. 21 SCIENCE.
	   Robert J. Beall, executive vice president for medical affairs
	at the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, hails the new work as a major
	victory in the fight against this disease, which usually kills by
	age 30."

	[...description of work omitted...]

	   "The mouse model will accelerate tha pace of [drug] research
	by allowing scientists to test combinations of drugs -- a step
	that can be dangerous to take with human volunteers, says Richard
	C. Boucher, who took part in the drug study as well as the two
	new mouse studies."


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal rights...again
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:46:55 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA


> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
 
>> In a broader sense, no animals, not even humans, have inherent rights.

Steve Pope writes:
> 
> Absolutely true.  The concept of rights is totally man-made.  
> 
 
I agree. Though I use the phrase "Animal Rights" for convenience, I find it 
can be very misleading. Instead of saying "animals have rights", I prefer to 
say:

  As a guideline for human behavior (a.k.a. ethic), it is better to choose to  
  inflict less pain than to inflict more pain. 
 
This feels very fundamentally true to me, and I think that in their heart of 
hearts, most people agree. Moreover, it's sufficient to directly derive 90% 
of the views of the AR movement, as well as a large number of non-AR related 
morals.  This ethic is tremendously fundamental and robust and I find it to 
be extraordinarily compelling.  

Perhaps "Animal Ethics" is a better name for the movement. Note that PETA's 
name captures this approach quite well.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Date: 14 Sep 1992 18:26:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu writes:

> We aim to teach the public about the
> true nature of animal research 

Nope.  You're just organizing another attempt at
whitewashing.  The true facts would repulse the public.
(And you knew that too.)

> ....and why we feel animal research must be allowed to continue.  

Well, there's two possible reasons for that.

Is it simply the money, or are you actually brainwashed?
Actually, brainwashed is a little strong, so I'll retract
that.  Co-opted fits about right.

> We have been quite successful over the last year, and we would be 
> more than happy to speak to anyone interested in setting up a 
> similar orginazation.

Of course you've been successful.  If there's one thing
the animal testing community is good at it's closing 
ranks.  Too bad they've forgotten how to be scientists.

If there's anything more reprehensible than wanton unnecessary
animal testing, it's organizing to ramp it up to even
more unnecessary levels.  And if there's anything more
reprehensible than *that*, it's gloating over the "success" 
of said activity.

w95_cook, you and others like you simply don't have the guts to 
admit that animal testing is, in fact, inhumanity on a gross scale.
You know it.  But you won't say it. 

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Lies about PETA
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:35:21 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

`... and because we support mandatory spay/neuter laws.

But wouldn't this be in violation of the animals rights?  What about
the animals rights to breed?  Or to have all of its organs?  Or to have
to risk its life to surgery?

Speaking of the name in general, is the People for the _Ethical_ Treatment
of Animals way of saying that forcing a (slave) pet animal to under go
reproductively altering surgery as to be "ethical"?  I suppose that their
arguement would be, "but it is for the good of the animal and the species."

Boy, I have been getting yelled at by AR types for using that arguement
for years.  I guess whats good for the goose....

Or perhaps they are resulting to, "If you can't beat em'..."  come to
think of it, destroying medical labs and [allegedly] releasing show
dogs as well as condoning the reintroduction of companion animals to
the wild environment would fall under that category.  As all will cause
potential damage to the animal and that is what they are supposedly trying
to stop (ie in the medical researh example, many types of research are
also used to fight animal disease.)

swood
-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:39:17 GMT

achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:

>viking@iastate.edu writes:
>>However, the fact remains that deer have quite good eyesight, excellent
>>hearing, and a refined sense of smell.  Coupled together, they make for
>>a formidable sensory array that I cannot hope to match without tools
>>such as telescopic sights, buck scent, and camoflauge clothing.

>You can with practice. Try bowhunting. Getting within 30 yards, raising and
>drawing a bow, and placing a shot through brush and trees is quite a 
>challenge, but not impossible.

	I am unwilling to do this due to the high liklihood of a wounding
instead of a killing shot given the terrain I hunt on, but I now hunt
deer and other ground-based animals exclusively with black powder, most
often a .45 pistol.  30 yards is about the limit of where I wish to shoot.
You're right, it can be a great challenge!

	This year I shall hunt tresspassers with the .45 and a 12ga
autoloader with 00 buckshot as backup.  Neither of these is legal for
hunting deer, so I expect no problems from the game wardens when they
wonder what I'm doing out during deer season with weapons unsuited for
the task.

<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. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:26:08 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Several posters have commented that some deer appear to be perfectly
rl> friendly to humans when/where hunting is not allowed, yet nowhere
rl> to be seen by the close of hunting season.

From article <1992Sep09.154955.5583@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
kb> Can you provide quotes from those articles, Russell? Apparently
kb> I missed them.

Sure.

From article <1992Aug28.221345.15367@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
======================================================================
ja> Because he may win in a confrontation with a wolf.  He will most 
ja> likely lose to a hunter.  This is probably learned behavior.  In 
ja> a park with no hunting, a deer may walk right into your camp.  
ja> They don't do that where I hunt.  I'd be glad to take you to both 
ja> areas if you don't believe it.  Different situations call for 
ja> different responses...  
======================================================================

kb> ... What is your definition of friendly, btw?  Do you mean get 
kb> within a few feet of the deer and it not run or even feed it 
kb> by hand? This is what I would consider friendly.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for Jeff, but I don't think that's the 
definition that he had in mind.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: unglenie@okeeffe.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:28:57 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

Jim B. Powlesland writes:
>
>What the hell is so profound about this!?
>
>We all know the AR-types want to ban animal utilization in all
>its forms and turn us into the over-urbanized, vegetarian,
>middle-class idiots they are.

I am HARDLY over-urbanized OR middle-class!!!!!     :-)

Rob U, it's only profound if your mind was closed from the outset
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -