HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 03:33:41 GMT

In <Brwu1K.1Io@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Would you mind defining the word "varmint"?   Why is it morally ok 
>to kill "varmints", but not ok to kill "non-varmints"?

	A "varmint" is a "a person or animal regarded as objectionable."
What's the matter, your dictionary catch fire?  Since many of us don't
particularly care as much about killing as you do, we consider some
animals (and people) to be objectionable enough to kill.  Pigeons,
rabbits in the garden, burgulars, rapists, murderers, and others of
that ilk.  A rabbit may be a treasure to behold in your neighborhood,
but up here they're pests.  In Pennsylvania, the same may be said of deer.

	Perhaps you will soon realize that many of us don't consider life
itself so sacred that killing is morally abhorrent in all cases.  Then
again, I've sparred with you long enough to know you'll never get this.

<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: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My Column On Hunting.
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:59:03 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <viking.711521942@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>Strangely enough, turkeys are only taken in a "sporting" manner if they are
>on the ground.  Once they fly, it's unsportsmanlike to shoot them. 

Strangely indeed. Do you know what is the rationale behind this notion
of "sporting"? Is it that they are just too easy to hit once they are
in the air, is the idea that they should `have a chance' to get away?

Or is it basically just tradition - that turkey shooters have always
thought that it is OK to shoot them on the ground, but not in the air,
and no-one quite knows why but there it is?

Curious ...

Paul
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: HARES; INTUBATION; ZOOS; FUR
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:44:20 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <viking.712469214@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>>In 1990, 60 Minutes revealed details of the sale of surplus zoo animals
>>(specifically: San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco Zoos) to animal
>>dealers, who in turn, sold the animal to breeding/canned hunt ranches.
>
>	Strangely enough, this is how a free market system operates.  If
>you don't like it, post a standing offer to pay 10% more than any ranch
>and be prepared to receive some animals.
>

Oh well, that makes it alright then!

I suppose you would have told the Abolitionists that slavery was just
"how a free market system operates", and if they wanted the slaves freed
then they ought to buy them off the slave owners at the going rate, and
turn them lose.      

I thought the notion that the "free market" was somehow synonymous with
"morality" went out along with Reagan/Thatcher.

Paul
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: the hungry homeless are eating the strays (believe it or not).
Date: 27 Jul 92 11:35:22 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul25.170817.9343@panix.com>, ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci) writes:
> One of the most startling and most hushed new developments which has
> grown out of our problem with the homeless in New York City, is their
> continued need for protein which many are now obtaining by eating
> the strays.  It's sad, it's heartbreaking, but it's true.

What the hell would you suggest they eat?  Caviar? :-)

> 
> This is not news to the NYC Police Dept., or the social service agencies
> who work with the homeless on a day to day basis.  

It shouldn't be news to anyone else either.

> 
> 	Oh, yes, and pidgeon- they say, makes a very hearty stew.

Actually, pidgeon is very tasty.  Had some in Cyprus once.  Mind you, I 
suspect it was fed a more, select, diet than pigeons in NYC.

> 
> 
> Do not flame me.  I didn't cause this- I merely witnessed it.  P.S.  the number
> of homeless being treated for ingestion of rat poison (formerly eaten by
> whatever animal they ate) has gone up dramatically as well.
-- 
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: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:52:19 GMT

Robert Black writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>There's nothing inherently bad about fanaticism if the cause is just and
>the tactics are ethical.

OK, Bob, I'll bite.  What tactics do you consider ethical?  In
specific, do you consider PETA's tactics ethical?


[more stuff deleted]

John Robinson writes:
>>I think there is a place in this world for ARFs, but I don't think it is in 
>>attempting to destroy a system that is working quite well to preserve not 
>>only the game animals, but their habitat and consequently many of the other 
>>animals that live there.
>
>Agreed.  Before anyone jettisons an existing system, there should be some
>assurance that a better alternative is available and ready to be phased in.
>But "better" in this context implies what is better for the animals not the
>hunters, wherever the interests of the two are in conflict.

What makes you think that this isn't what is currently done (e.g.,
hunter X wants a new system to shoot 41 deer but it is not implemented
since it isn't in the animals' best interest)?  Also, what makes you
think the overwhelming majority of hunters wouldn't be very quick to
agree with you?  If I've tried to put words in your mouth here, feel
free to spit them out and clarify the issue. :-)


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"--
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunters legitimate concern
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:09:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?

In article <BrK1vH.Ev@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <14268mINNr51@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>ml> [in response to another posting]
>ml> It's apparant that Dreamer here is not going to listen to reason, 
>ml> facts or anything else that might blow away his preconceived 
>ml> notion that hunting is a bad thing and those who hunt are also 
>ml> bad.  I imagine it is a total waste of time trying to convince 
>ml> someone like Dreamer to open their eyes and try to at least make 
>ml> an informed decision on the issue.  As it is it's painfully 
>ml> obvious that he really has no appreciable knowledge of what he is 
>ml> discussing.  

>I agree with you that everyone should listen to facts and reason.

>Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore empirical and rational
>arguments whenever and whereever those arguments conflict with their
>own peculiar beliefs.

>I have a question for you, Mr Linan: Are you willing to listen to 
>facts and reason?  Or, do you still contend that beliefs and 
>truths are one and the same?  eg, "I believe it, therefore it 
>must be true".  


I think most people feel their beliefs are the truth and have no reason
to believe otherwise unless evidence is produce to prove their beliefs
wrong.  Often times it is not that black and white though.


>As an example, do you still believe that cattle/dairy farming in
>California have had no bearing on the water shortages over the past
>few years?   


I don't think I ever said cattle had "no" bearing on the water shortage in
California.  What I did was dispute the claim that there would not be a 
shortage if it wasn't for cattle and I disputed that cattle production was
the major source of water consumption.  I also pointed out that California
is in a drought and prior to the drought, there were not complaints aimed
at the cattle industry or any other water users because we had plenty of
water.  No one complained of their neighbor watering their lawns every day
before the drought.  They may now.  No one complained of the rich people in
Palm Springs who want to have lush lawns and gardens in the desert.  They 
may now.  I am suspect of the motives of many ARs who all too often attack
the activities they do not agree with first without looking at the big pic-
ture with an open mind.


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


Mike Linan



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: HUNTING NEWS
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:59:43 GMT

Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:

>HUNTING NEWS

[reams of anti-hunting propaganda deleted to save bandwidth -- don't
 you wish everybody did the same? ;-)]

>+ The National Shooting Sports Foundation claims that taking a 
>bath is twice as dangerous as hunting because 350 people per
>year drown in their bathtubs, while "only" 146 people were killed 
>by hunters.  However, the 16 million licensed hunters hunt fewer
>than 10 days a year on average.  Thus if the 251 million Americans 
>bathe on average once a day, 83,665 people per year would
>drown in bathtubs if bathing and hunting really were equally 
>dangerous hunters would kill only one person every four years.
> 
> From: Animals Agenda
> 456 Monroe Turnpike
> Monroe, CT 06468
> Issue: 5/92

And you AR folk wonder why we don't take your propaganda seriously.
Ferrell, old friend, why on Earth do you post drivel like this?  Did
an "N"-key abuse you as a child and this is your retalliation??  (For
those that lost me, the "N"-key scrolls to the next message on most
news software on a Unix box.)  It was bad enough when Rob U. was
posting tripe like "hunter kills 12 cows," but this *really* takes the
cake.
     It's a common notion among certain hunters that AR folk have come
up with their convoluted values (no offense anybody) from watching the
film "Bambi" too many times, and actually starting to *believe* it.
Well, Ferrell, I'll have to bite on this one and ask just how many
times have you and your pals at _Animal Agenda_ seen "*The Little
Mermaid*?"
     You see, very few Americans spend the *entire* d-mn day from
sunup to sundown *bathing*.  Darn, I forgot to tell you to sit down
before the shock.  Are you OK?  I do hope you didn't fall down and hit
your head on something (although it could help, if not a fatal blow).
Those stats would be meaningful *only* if the entire time people spent
hunting during a *full* day were equal to the time they spent bathing
during a day.
     I admit it was a nice try, but in the future, please tell the
publishers to stick to the facts, if they want anyone other than you
AR folk to take them seriously.  Oh and, not that I'm trying to be
net.police or anything, but, you really don't need to waste bandwidth
like this.  Thanks.


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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 04:31:21 GMT

 proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>This is all very well, but surely you aren't saying that we can't have
>a view of - or even form educated opinions about - activities we haven't
>personally participated in?

	An "educated opinion" means you know that you don't know enough to
make a firm opinion.  Watch a decent basketball game, say, "I could do that,"
and then reflect on why these people get millions per year.  Reason: you
_can't_ do that at this time, and quite probably not ever.  In the case
of hunting, you can quite possibly do it, but are you willing to do so?  If
not, you have no idea of what it actually takes, only your "educated
opinion," which may be faulty in many areas.  I'll use another example, just
to show the point: ever watch a person operate a manual transmission?  Now,
ever see a first-timer try, even after having watched for many years?  Like
any skill, an educated opinion based on observation does not often include
the more subtle skills involved.  Think on this.

>Try going over to soc.history and saying something like "all this condemnation
>of the Holocaust, from people that have never killed themselves a Jew/gay/
>commie/gypsy in there lives!" ....

>(Oh damn, I mentioned the Nazis. Let me wearily add that I am not comparing
>hunters with nazis, I am merely pointing out that we all have lots of opinions
>about activities in which we have not personally participated, and those
>opinions are not thereby worthless.)

	Have you ever killed a human being?  Do you know what it's like?  Can
you expect your "educated guess" to know what it's like?  I leave you with
the lesson to be learned here with regards to "educated opinions" that have
no basis in actual experience.  As you might see, watching and reading are
no substitute for actually doing.

<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: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: Texas AR Conference
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:55:26 GMT



I wrote:

>I wonder who the two "hunters" debating Ingrid Nutburger and Pretty Boy 
>Pacelle are;  I bet *THEY* were well chosen.  I imagine they'll be *REAL* 
>articulate spokesmen for the hunting side.  (Shit, I wouldn't be surprised 
>to find out they're really card-carrying ALF members in hunter drag...)


jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) flames back:

(Stuff deleted)


>>I would guess that these hunters were asked because they'll be in town for the
>>Parks and Wildlife Red-Neck Fest anyway, and that Nugent was asked in
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>particular because he's a well-known hunting advocate.  The Lone Star
>>Bowhunters' Association has been asked to provide _a_ spokesperson; if they
>>choose an inarticulate yahoo as their representative, it will be because
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that's they best they could find among their ranks.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well YAHOO!  Hey, all you red-neck hunters down there in Texas!  Do you have
any ARTICULATE yahoos out there that would like to attend their little
Animal Rights conference, to like, participate in the discussion about
sport hunting?!!!  >:-)

I mean, they've gone out of their way to make this thing sound like an open 
and unbiased forum (although I still think that asking Ted Nugent to talk was 
an intentional act based upon Ted's bad boy reputation).  It would be real
nice if it actually was a balanced debate, but somehow I'm as skeptical
about this as if Doc Holliday had just invited me to sit down for a 
"friendly" little game of poker.

Maybe some of the thousands of hunters in the area would like to actually
make it into a REAL open forum.  It would really be a pity if the only folks 
there to see this "debate" were ARFs; the pro-hunters wouldn't get anything 
but abuse. It would be kinda like being the sole conservative on a panel 
discussing some left wing-ish subject on the Donahue show (unintentional
shudder of unsuppressed horror);  a little bit like Daniel in the lion's den, 
I would suspect.

So I would advise my brother and sister hunters down there in Texas to go
on down to this conference (after the beer runs out at the Parks and Wildlife
Red-Neck Fest, that is...)  :-) and let your feelings be added to the discussion.
As John Van Etten so aptly put it:  "We don't want the squeaky little wheels 
getting *all* the grease, now do we?"

(And please folks, behave...  Don't leave your Lone Star empties and Moon Pie
wrappers all over the place, and remember to carry your own spit cup, 'cause
these AR folks have very delicate sensibilities, and aren't quite used to
a bunch of inarticulate rednecks like us'ns.) :-)

Welcome to the jihad, Jennifer...


Ken

>>>>------------>  "One shot, quick and clean"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Hunting-Fat-Fertility.  Was: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 06:49:14 GMT

From article <dwxx8vc@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> However, I would say that in general, *today* hunting is only 
jve> allowed in those areas and on those species where populations 
jve> require it. 

Proof?

jve> Animals have a habit of increasing their populations to over the 
jve> maximum that can be supported by the food supply and then going 
jve> over and over through the viscious starvation cycle.  We've 
jve> discussed that before.  

How much do you know about the hormonal mechanisms that control 
mammalian reproductive cycles?  Specifically, what effect does 
adipose tissue have on the onset of estrus?  And, what percentage
of body fat must a female deer have in order to ovulate?   Perhaps
you don't know the precise figures, but I'm sure you'll agree that
they're well-above the starvation point.  This would lead me to 
believe that mammalian populations are self-limiting in stable, 
natural environments, and therefore, it may not be entirely 
accurate to say that non-human mammals would inevitably starve
without human intervention.

Several posters have pointed out that hunting has allegedly 
helped deer by increasing herd populations.  Would this 
observation have anything to do with the relationship between 
body fat and fertility?  By reducing herd numbers prior to the 
winter months, it seems to me that hunting would increase the 
supply of food per capita which, in turn, would increase the 
percentage of body fat in females of breeding age.  This would 
increase the fawn crop the following season.  It's my understand 
that some fish and game departments make matters worse by 
supplying deer with additional feed, thereby increasing fertility 
and the necessity for human intervention to prevent starvation.  

If you think I've misrepresented the facts, please explain why
hunting increases herd populations.  Thanks in advance for whatever
evidence you're able to present.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:55:24 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Jul29.144422.25659@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, 
keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:

> Ethics is sort of like being pregnant. Either you are or you're not. 
> Likewise, a person is either ethical or they're not. IMHONESTO. In my book, 
> there is no in between. How many ways can you debate ethics??  
 
Consider two actions:
 
   Serial torture and murder of nuns 
   Stealing a pen from a store
 
Do you consider these two actions to be ethically equivalent? I don't. I 
think serial torture and murder is worse than shoplifting. I prefer to use an 
approach to ethics that allows for such a distinction.

Keith Boyd writes:
 
 > So you see Ted, when one has no ethics, one loses most or all of credibility
> in the eyes of the public.  
 
I agree that this happens. However, the credibility of the messenger need 
only be important if the message doesn't stand on its own. That is, if we're 
being asked to take something on faith, then whoever's asking us to do so 
better be credible. In a discussion of ethics, however, the message CAN stand 
on its own, to live or die by the strength of its arguments. Attacking such a  
message by attacking the messenger is often politically successful, but gets 
us no nearer the truth. 

Ted Robinson writes:
>>The logical conclusion of your complaint about hypocrisy is that only those 
>>that are ethically perfect can comment about ethics.

Keith Boyd writes:
>Sort of like "He who is without sin, cast the first stone", huh?
 
 Superficially these are similar, but there's a key difference. As I said in 
my original post, discussions on ethics should focus on judging actions, not 
people. Those who wished to cast a stone were judging a person. I'm not 
seeking to cast stones, merely to feel free to DISCUSS ethics without first 
achieving ethical perfection.  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:21:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul17.052521.10939@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.161229.20082@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>>John Robinson wrote to David Caruso II:
>>>......  Would you think more highly of hunters if they dragged their 
>>>heels as they went into the woods, reluctant to dicharge a distateful 
>>>duty?
>>
>>				YES
>
>Quite. Conversely, what would you think of a state executioner who
>really REALLY enjoyed his job? 

I certainly would not want this executioner to be the one who decided
whether a particular individual should be executed or not.

>
>Would you have any objection to the State of California "auctioning"
>off to the highest bidder the opportunity to be the one who presses
>The Button at San Quentin? - I am sure there would be some takers, 
>and the money so raised could be spent on various worthwhile projects.

I certainly would not want this highest bidding button pusher to be the
one who decided whether a particular individual should be executed or
not. 

>Paul

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com [Rich Young (x37176)]
Subject: Re: DIET AND HEALTH NEWS
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 17:09:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.162823.10198@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:

[...]

>   THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL CHART.  Nor was
>   there any change in the recommendations for the number of servings of
>   non-meat/non-dairy items vs. fruits, vegetables, and grains in a balanced
    ^^^      ^^^
>   diet from the original pyramid.

	Sorry, those "nons" shouldn't have been there.  I guess I was feeling
	rather negative about being at work on a Saturday.  :-)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Rich Young                             | Phone: (716) 253-7176
Eastman Kodak Company                  | FAX: (716) 253-7254
Clinical Products Division             | Internet: young@serum.kodak.com
100 Carlson Road                       |
Rochester, New York, USA   14653-9122  | These are MY opinions, not Kodak's!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Don't get angry, get accurate information.