From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:22:53 GMT

In article <dmgyl2g@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <lqfy2#+@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>The evidence continues to mount that there are really two John Van Ettens.
>>The first one - let's call him the Good John - has recognized that animals
>>have some rights and actually signs petitions against unnecessary cruelty
>>inflicted on geese to fatten up their livers.  The Bad John comes up with
>>drivel like that below and in other postings which I read but lacked the 
>>time to answer before their disappearance from this site.
>
>Hi, Bob.  Glad to see I struck a nerve, that's often the best way to
>see the true reflexes of people. :-)  Alas, there is only one of me,

I'll have to take your word for it now, but I'm not totally convinced :-).

>although I doubt you're disappointed in that.  And that one of me is
>neither Good nor Bad, as you've put it (although popular opinion may
>be that I'm closer to the latter than the former :-).  That one of me
>is now, and always shall be, quite pro-animal.  (You AR folk are more
>than welcome to call that self-serving, if you'd like -- perhaps it
>is... I don't know.)
>
>
>>>Steve, I've read this at least six times now, and I still think you
>>>are somehow serious about this deluded passage.  You've got to be
>>>kidding me.  Like most other hunters, I long for the day when the
>>>media shows you AR folk for exactly what you *are*, 
>>
>>Yes, the AR folks also want to be shown for exactly what they are.
>>However that realistic view is not synonymous with the delusion you've
>>set forth here.
>
>So you say, Bob.  I went to a meeting the night before last (perhaps
>it in part spurred my reply to Steve's rediculous thought that the
>media labels you folk as fanatics) that was held by the New York State
>Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) about their recent
>Draft Environmental Impact Study on re-introducing moose into the
>Adirondack Mountains.  Quite an interesting event, as it bordered on
>an AR rally.  Seems the DEC (scared to death about being PC in calling
>the meeting) sent a disproportionate amount of mail to AR groups
>instead of hunter or environmental groups.

That would be a switch.  Usually it's been the other way around.  For
example, a far greater number of hunters than any other group, are on
the federal government's mailing list to receive questionnaires and 
position papers on the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

>  But I was there to see the
>show.  And the PETA reps (claiming that they represent 500,000 members
>in New York :-) :-), stood up and told us that they were against
>bringing these moose, which are overpopulated in the park in New
>England where they are coming from (read starving in Winter), into New
>York because the DEC predicts that more than 20 years down the road
>they *may* have to have special hunting in certain areas to control the
>herd since there are no natural predators (wolves) to control them.
>But more on this meeting below...

If what you're saying is true and not subjected to a pro-hunting 
anti-AR filter, then I would not oppose transplanting the moose here.

However, you must forgive AR people if they are somewhat skeptical of
the hunter motives.  I'll illustrate this with an analogy.  Over the
years we have had a number of dogs and cats euthanatized (euthanized?). 
Almost invariably, we have depended on the opinions and evaluations of a
veterinarian.  If I thought the vet had some other interest than just
the welfare of the animals or had something to gain by the death or was
in anyway motivated by other considerations than suffering and quality
of life, then I would be forced to discount his/her input alot. 

So do you see where I'm coming from? Hunters who perceive animals
generally as a resource to be harvested or simply as a source of food
can not be assumed to be totally objective by those who really care
about the animal and his/her value as an individual.  The skepticism of
AR people toward hunters on issues like the one you raise is to be
expected and is very understandable, based on the philosophy expressed
over and over again by hunters in just about every conceivable forum.

>
>>>instead of
>>>painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  You folk
>>>would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
>>>by predators while still alive 

Now you know that in my case at least from postings and email, that I am
not a proponent of starvation, nor am I irrevocably committed to the
predator approach.

>than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
>>>shoot one and feed his or her family.  You folk don't give a damn that
>>>by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
>>>source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
>>>over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
>>>taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  Imagine what would happen if the
>>>media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
>>>want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
>>>could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, 

Are you assuming that animal experiments are going to cure AIDS?  People
are dying every day, and in some cases these people are willing to 
volunteer for experimental procedures and drugs.  Meanwhile, after all
the money spent, we still don't have an animal model of AIDS, let alone
one that we KNOW will permit accurate extrapolation of results across
species.

>>
>>Be sure and hold your breath while awaiting animal experiments to
>>deliver humans from these scourges.  :-) ...especially cancer for which
>>millions of animal lives have been sacrificed for over a hundred years,
>>during which the cancer rate has risen and during which inadequate
>>attention has been devoted to prevention. 
>
>Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but you seem to be saying that I'm
>right that you folk don't want animals used to try and cure AIDS and
>cancer.

I'm saying that I have very little faith in the ability of animal
experiments to provide a cure for AIDS in a reasonable time frame (if
ever), especially compared with other approaches like tissue cultures
and human volunteers, not to mention more emphasis on prevention.  That
is my view.

And I'm saying that they have had literally centuries of animal
experiments intended to find a cure for cancer, and yet we have more of
it than ever.  Millions of animals have been "sacrificed" already.  In
some cases, the causes of cancer are well known and prevention is a very
viable alternative.  In other cases we have seen drugs that seemed to
work on animals, but had no effect or even deadly effects when tried on
humans, due to species-to-species diferences in areas like metabolism
patterns and rates.  Again that is my view. 

>  The fact that the media rarely notes that (not good
>headlines, I guess) was my only point -- not that you are bad people
>for feeling that way (although I'll reserve the right to feel you all
>are confused or misinformed).

Evidently I'm somewhat out of touch with The Media.  It has not been
my perception that AR have been elevated to any great plateau.

>
>>>instead of beating the
>>>anti-hunter drums as part of their happy little agenda to disarm the
>>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>American people 
>>
>>This is a gross misrepresenatation, at best, or an outright lie, at
>>worst.  Have your arguments against the AR positions become so weak that
>>you now need to resort to conjured up linkages in order to make your
>>case?
>
>I'm confused Bob.  Perhaps you've misinterpretted what I wrote, but
>the "their" which you've underscored refers to the media, not AR folk.
>Or is it that you truly don't think the media has an agenda to disarm
>the citizens (did you watch Tom Brokaw's "Special" on NBC -- or did
>you actually believe Tom was just "reporting the facts" with no
>agenda)?  Also, you seem pretty upset, Bob.  Please don't take any of
>this stuff personal.

Okay.  Apparently I did misunderstand you here.  It appeared to me
that you perceived the AR movement as part of some anti-gun conspiracy.
The AR movement and the gun control movement are distinct.

>
>>>(us mean-old-nasty-"assault-rifle"-toting-scum-of-
>>>the-Earth-Bambi-killers being a good start on their mission).  The
>>>media will never mention all the good that hunters do in controlling
>>>animal populations and helping the environment, 
>>
>>What media? Walk into a typical supermarket in the area where I live and
>>take a glance at the magazine racks.  What do you see?  I won't keep you
>>in suspense here.  You see DOZENS of pro-hunting magazines.  How many AR
>>magazines?  If you said zero, then you're right on.  Whose view is
>>getting the opportunity for wider distribution?
>
>Aye, there's the rub.  We seem to disagree quite a bit on what we
>consider to be "the media."  Forgive any sarcasm, but I've always
>thought "the media" was things like the six o'clock news and the
>morning newspaper.  You know, *news* the average person reads, not any
>pro-hunting mags that are not read by a general audience.  Nor any
>PETA brochures.  These are both propaganda, Bob, and nothing more.

Perhaps.  Is it your contention that this "propaganda" has no (as in
zero) true informational content?  If not, then why can't all of us
"intelligent" people :-) who know so much about propaganda, just simply
filter out the propagandistic components and still learn something?

>     What I'm talking about is being at the moose meeting of the DEC
>and having the local papers write articles and the local TV stations
>have news blips about "AR movement tries to stop slaughter of moose in
>New York -- DEC only bringing them in for hunting" and "Hunters lobby
>for rights to kill 'endangered' moose being stocked in New York State,
>despite Animal Rights cries to help the poor animals."  And that's
>exactly how "the media" (if you'll permit me to use my definition)
>presented to event to the general public, despite the opinions voiced
>by myself and other hunters present that we don't want to kill any
>moose unless it were absolutely needed down the road.  It was summed
>up quite nicely by a young fellow representing one of the local
>sportsmans' associations when he said (paraphrased) that he thought it
>was rather sad that these moose should have to starve where they are
>instead of being brought into New York simply because some people
>[ARs] couldn't see past their hatred of hunting far enough to see the
>good that was being done and the fact that the hunters didn't want to
>kill the moose either.  [Again, such culling -- if it were to *ever*
>become necessary -- would occur many decades down the road.  Please
>note also that *no* general tax money was to be used for the project.]

As I stated above, if the facts are as you've stated them, then I
would certainly not oppose the transfer of moose into the Adirondacks.

[... rest deleted ... to be addressed in next post ...]

---
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