HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Olympics and Animal rights
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:02:38 GMT
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC

In article <1992Aug13.184316.7193@news.cs.brandeis.edu> xi@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In modern olympic games, equestrian is also very popular, but the human
>got medal and money, what did horse get?
>--Zhigang

Simple.  Horse got treated very well. He got fed. He got exercise. He got
the best vetinary care money could buy. He got attention and most of all...
(This is the biggy) he got to live.  I am being a little sarcastic with 
my wording so I hope you will forgive me. To make a counterpoint, I watch-
ed a program on Discovery channel last week which showed the plight of
wild horses in Australia. There were so many that they were being put
down by rifle from a helicopter to control the population. This is not
hunting by any means, but seems to be their best method for controlling
feral equine. So, generally the horses you see in competition on tv get
treated very well. True, some may break a leg in a fall or sustain some
other kind of injury during trials, but what would happen to a wild 
horse that broke a leg in a gopher hole and began to suffer in the wild?
Would there be someone around to put it down??   Probably not.


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 BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Date: 13 Aug 1992 23:01:22 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BsvEoB.F6t@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <hv+yf3l@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>> Ferrell, let me say that I bear you no malice.  I don't give a damn
>> what you post and where you post it.  I'm not trying to be net.police
>> or anything.  However, I do consider it to be rude for you to drop
>> your propaganda and not reply to any followups, since t.p.a is a
>> debating forum.

>>      However, let me say that it's indeed nice for you to say that you
>> will stop posting here based upon a democratic vote.  That strikes me
>> as a very fair offer on your part, and I respect you for it.  And just
>> to keep you honest, how about if everyone sends *me* a carbon copy of
>> their vote?  That way I can make sure that your calculator didn't
>> accidentally have a power surge or something. ;-)

>I've sent my comments to Farrell, but I didn't send you a carbon 
>copy.  Farrell's free to decide for himself whether to keep my 
>message private or to share it with others, including you.  He's 
>also free to decide for himself what he will or won't post, just 
>as the rest of us are entitled to decide, as individuals, what we 
>will or won't read.   

 
Let's not forget what we will or won't eat, what we will or won't hunt,
what is or isn't ethical, what we will or won't believe in, who we feel
is or isn't honest.   That is the whole point, that we have the freedom
to choose what we will eat and whether we will hunt.  Ain't nobody got
the right to take that away from us.

Mike Linan










>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: 2 questions for the AR types
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:45:09 GMT

John S. Van Etten writes:
>Somebody named SK writes:

Scott Keating.

>>	a.  hunters often cite the use of animal products by 'indians' but
>>            *rarely* live a lifestyle that shows the same respect for animals
>>            or environment (this is true of most americans today, but hunters
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>            are pegged because 'indian' reference is often used as a defense
>>            of their actions)
>
>Mighty big of you synthetic-garment-loving AR folk to include
>yourselves in these ranks.  Proof once again that no matter what is
>discussed, some folks just don't [want to] get it.
>John

Actually I think he is excluding a group and not including one.......

Rob U, can't remember his Ojibway nickname right now..... damn

--
-       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                             -
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:56:11 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[munch munch for brevity]

Tim Rigg asked:

>tr> If deer can self regulate their populations without any predation, do
>tr> you have any guesses why the League Against Cruel Sports used culling
>tr> by shooters to maintain deer populations on reserves they controlled?

And was, in turn, asked by Russell Lawrence:

>Getting back to the deer park that you mentioned previously, 
>would you say that the reserves in question were ecologically
>stable and free from human interference?  Were the deer that lived 
>therein dependent on the resources of the eco-system alone or were 
>their food supplies supplemented with fat-rich animal feeds and/or
>handouts from well-meaning visitors?  

And since I am in a position of knowledge on this matter, I'll provide
some answers.

1) It is not a park (that implies enclosed land) it is open wild
moorland - Exmoor I believe. One of the few places in England where
wild red deer exist and one of the few places where they are hunted.
(No coincidence there.)

2) Yes, the moors are basically free from human interference. It is not
cultured land. The area bought by LACS has been deliberately left alone,
not even sheep are grazed on it.

3) Yes the deer are entirely dependent on what nature provides. The
LACS made much (when they bought the land) that nature would be left to
take its course. (Handouts from visitors? Look Russell, these are WILD
deer, they are not domesticated creatures, they keep clear of
predators.)

Well, nature *has* taken its course. And now the LACS has red deer
coming out of its ears. They have a statutory obligation to prevent
marauding deer from damaging neighbour's crops (which the deer are
doing). Their piece of land will support only so many deer.
Consequently, they have recognised that, in the absence of natural
predation (eg the European wolf) they are going to have to cull the
deer themselves, or get someone to do it for them (but not as a sport).
Only they don't consider that a pack of deerhounds (eg the Quorn hunt
who own neighbouring land) is an acceptable substitute for a pack of
wolves. The LACS advocate that the deer should be controlled by
"marksmen using high powered rifles". THis is a very different position
from that when they bought the land which argued that the deer would
stabalise their numbers to that which the ground could support. They
don't, they just expand their range (of course).

These are the facts. If you wish to read what LACS has said for
yourself, I will provide the full reference, but it may not be until
next week. It was an article which LACS wrote for publication in the
Journal of the British Deer Society 'Deer' and was published last year
along with nine or ten articles from other interested parties.
(Interested in the welfare of wild red deer, that is.)

--Jonathan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 15 Aug 92 04:09:09 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug14.170938.20383@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.212521.42344@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
>du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>
>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!

Who says he's offering a physical fight? He just says "challenge me".
Maybe he's proposing a TV debate, or to settle it all by a game of
chess. I mean, we can't leap to conclusions here, can we?

Paul (just being pedantic, I don't really think he might be talking
      about a chili cookout contest ...)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: My dog
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 07:02:49 GMT

From article <1992Aug18.190515.19496@pellns.alleg.edu>, by frisinv@alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina):
vf> I have a question that may seem a little odd.  I'm NOT trying to 
vf> justify some assinine conclusion like "animal rights activists 
vf> really support sport hunting", I'm just curious.  My brother's 
vf> girlfriend's mother's neighbor noticed a dog hanging around on 
vf> her farm.  The dog looked like he had beed abandoned by his owner 
vf> (he liked people and knew commands like sit and lay down as 
vf> opposed to being a wild dog) so she fed him.  For some reason she 
vf> couldn't keep the dog and was going to shoot him, so my brother 
vf> adopted him.  Now here is the problem: should we tie it up?  If 
vf> we let he loose he hunts in the woods by our house even though we 
vf> feed him and the animals just rot (he leaves carcases).  If we 
vf> tie him up, he'll be miserable because a dog should be able to 
vf> roam free.  

Perhaps, but there are limits to freedom, even for the wildest of 
animals in the most primitive habitats.   

vf> We can't "let him return to his natural habitat" 
vf> because the last time he was on his own, he nearly starved to 
vf> death (for some reason, probably training, he won't eat whast he 
vf> kills) and almost got shot.  So now we have a lot of animals with 
vf> equal right to live free but no solution.  BTW fencing him in is 
vf> the same as tying him to a post.  

Why would fencing him in be the same as tying him to a post?  In a
large fenced yard, he would surely have more opportunities to amuse
himself and occupy his mind than he would have on the end of a short 
tether, especially if there are other animals around.   The two dogs
that live with me occupy a small range, consisting of a three 
bedroom house and a suburban yard, but they rarely show signs of 
boredom as they move from room to room and game to game.  Granted,
a twenty acre site would be nicer, and a 20,000 acre site would be 
nicer still, but practically speaking, they're happy with the
status quo.  If they were tied up on the otherhand, I'm sure they'd 
be miserable.  

If fences aren't practical, is it possible that training might help
the dog learn to stick around.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting and Killing. Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:00:58 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


To clear up any confusion, here is the actual quote:

"In utilitarian hunting the true purpose of the hunter, what he
seeks and values, is the death of the animal. Everything else
that he does before that is merely a means for achieving that
end, which is its formal purpose. But in hunting as sport this
order of means to end is reversed. To the sportsman the death of
the game is now what interests him; that is not his purpose. What
interests him is everything that he had to do to achieve that
death--that is, the hunt. Therefore what was before only a means
to an end is now an end in itself. Death is essential because
without it there is no authentic hunting: the killing of the
animal is the natural end of the hunt and that goal of hunting
itself, not the hunter. The hunter seeks this death because it is
no less than the sign of reality for the whole hunting process.
To sum up, one does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary,
one kills in order to have hunted. If one were to present the
sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse
it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly
brute through his own effort and skill with all extras that this
carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the
healthfulness of the exercise, the distractions from his job, and
so on and so forth."

Jose Ortega y Gasset. 1985. "Meditations on Hunting". Charles
Scribner's Sons. New York. pp.96-97.

[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]
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 01:03:31 GMT

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>I pose a question for all those who advocate the right to kill animals
>(hunters):

	Yup, that's me!  IN fact, I just sent off my deer permit application.
Interestingly enough, it's free for landowners, and costs $25 for additional
or non-landowner licenses.  The limit is one.  That's it, one deer.  It seems
the Iowa deer population is at low ebb these days.

>Do you believe it is ethical to kill an animal primarily for its fur?

	Yes, but I have reservations.  Several situations can make me need
that fur, and I'll kill to have it.  Being naked in Alaska is one.  Being
on my motorcycle requires leather (and there is no viable substitute as
of yet), and quite frankly I figure killing a cow to protect my hide is
a worthwhile endeavor.  That I did not do the killing is moot, since I
quite possibly sold the cow, and am quite possibly eating her later on
this evening, and I know what each entails.  There is no substitute for
animal fur, and the synthetics available can quite possibly be of
greater harm to the environment than harvesting the fur.  Basically, I
see animals as a renewable resource, just like trees.  Both need good
management practices, and neither should be squandered, but on moral
grounds I tend to equate the use of either so long as environmental
concerns over-ride my individual need for the products.


>Naturally, in my posting, "Rover stares down my barrel," where I stated I had
>the right to shoot someone's pet, I did so facetiously and to emphasize my 
>point ... not because I believe I actually have such a right.  I definitely
>do not.  (Hello, Kenneth.)

	It's a good thing, too.  I suspected as much.  You might take some
heart in knowing that such misuse of a firearm means you would not be
welcome in my camp, my land, or my home.  Since you have admitted it was
only a story, you are welcome in all until you prove otherwise.  My
ethics don't always agree with yours, but they are just a valid.

<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: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Date: 18 Aug 1992 14:49:23 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <Bt5Cn5.KJA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>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? 


I don't about you Russell but, it didn't sound like he was saying 
"any" action was justifiable.  Why would you assume that?  He was
speaking of hunters.  Wasn't that what you were talking about?  Or
were you talking about "anyone"?


>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?  


I guess you just can't fathom that many or more correctly most everybody
in this country do not equate animal life with human life.  Every time
someone makes a comment you like to compare it to a situation with humans.
This may work in your mind but for most everybody else it does not.


>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 phenomenology
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 03:25:46 GMT

Ted Wayn Altar writes:

[lots of stuff about bugs deleted, since we agree]
JSVE wrote:
>>     You're also probably wondering why I underscored "sport" above.
>>It seems we will always disagree on it's definition, but killing an
>>animal for food is not some silly little cruel game that hunters play.
>>There are reasons why it is done, and we've been through them before.

Ted Altar replied:
>Yes, we have been through them before.  Hunting out of necessity is
>one thing, but merely to supplement the table with venison is not
>a situation of necessity.  You won't starve if no deer meat is
>brought home, hence to justify this practice as "killing for
>food" doen't wash.   Take for example the practice of a "can-hunt".
>Here we have a situation where the "real" motivations for killing
>animals are ineluctably transparent.  Calling this "sport" is
>an over-generous euphemism, to say the least.

No, I wouldn't starve if I didn't get a deer.  But that in and of
itself doesn't mean I'm not "hunting for food."  If I get a deer, that
means that the grocery money that I would have spent on an equivalent
amount of food can be used for something else -- almost always a
necessity such as a new clutch in the car to get to work or something.
I keep a fund with the saved grocery money and use it for other things
that are needed.  I realize that you probably don't begrudge me
(personally) that extra money for other stuff, so why are you so quick
to imply that I'm only out there in the woods because I get off on
killing things?  Not everyone is as rich as the Kennedys or the
Rockefellers. :-)


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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: WOOLWORTHS; PETS
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:24:33 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I've sent my comments to Farrell, but I didn't send you a carbon 
rl> copy.  Farrell's free to decide for himself whether to keep my 
rl> message private or to share it with others, including you.  He's 
rl> also free to decide for himself what he will or won't post, just 
rl> as the rest of us are entitled to decide, as individuals, what we 
rl> will or won't read.   

From article <16epk2INNedk@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> Let's not forget what we will or won't eat, what we will or won't 
ml> hunt, what is or isn't ethical, what we will or won't believe in, 
ml> who we feel is or isn't honest.  That is the whole point, that we 
ml> have the freedom to choose what we will eat and whether we will 
ml> hunt.  Ain't nobody got the right to take that away from us.  

You don't have such a freedom.  Try barbequing Barbara Bush for 
lunch and see how far you get.  

Let's try to maintain the distinction between personal rights and 
property rights, shall we?  The fact that Linan's mind may have a 
rightful claim to control Linan's body as it sees fit, doesn't 
mean that Linan's body has a right to seize or control the bodies 
of other feeling/thinking beings.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:55:19 GMT


[ re: the relevance of sentience and sapience ]

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> To illustrate my point: would a brain-dead comatose human give
rl> two hoots if you were to shoot him squarely in the foot?  Probably
rl> not, since brain-dead men are neither sentient nor likely to
rl> become sentient in the future.

From article <1992Aug15.171902.25559@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> The phrase "brain-DEAD" [emphasis added] sums it up quite nicely:
ry> he's not really "alive".  His major sensory processing center has
ry> ceased to function.  This is a "red herring".

You've been pretending that "life" is meaningful in-itself and 
that "sentience" is an arbitrary quality, but you turn around 
and tell us that a living organism is "dead" simply because it's 
no longer sentient.  Why would it matter whether a man's "sensory 
processing center" has ceased to function if sentience and sapience
aren't the primary essence of meaningful existence?

I'll respond to some of the other points in your last message 
after you explain the apparent contradiction in your argument.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals