HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Poem: The Monkey's Viewpoint
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:23:21 GMT



>From the Primate-l mailing list

                        The Monkey's Viewpoint

                Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
                Discussing things as they are said to be -
                Said one to the other, "Now listen - you two,
                There's a certain rumor that can't be true -
                That man descended from our noble race!
                The very idea is a disgrace!

                No monkey ever deserted his wife,
                Starved her babies and ruined her life.
                And you've never known a mother monk
                To leave her babies with others to bunk,
                Or pass them on from one to another,
                Til they scarcely know who is their mother.

                And another thing you'll never see -
                A monk build a fence 'round a coconut tree -
                And let the coconuts go to waste,
                Forbidding all other monks a taste.
                Why, if I'd put a fence around the tree,
                Starvation would force you to steal from me!

                Here's another thing a monk won't do -
                Go out at night and get on a stew.
                Or use a gun, a club, or a knife,
                To take some other monkey's life.
                YES, Man descended, we'll raise no fuss.....
                BUT, BROTHER, HE DIDN'T DESCEND FROM US!"


        No author is credited, so I assume it is anonymous.

      --Christine A. Dail
        I.U. Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN
        dailcann@mentor.cc.purdue.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunter's legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:41:58 GMT

From article <1992Jul30.201157.15251@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, by kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown):
jkb> I'm not going to jump too deep into this discussion, but let me 
jkb> clear up a few points that have been raised concerning DU.  First 
jkb> and foremost, the purpose of DU is wetlands preservation.  Yes, 
jkb> it is mainly composed of hunters and hunting is something that 
jkb> you will see described in the DU magazine, but hunting is not the 
jkb> purpose of the organization.  If you read the DU magazine you 
jkb> will see numerous articles on conservation and the health of our 
jkb> wetlands.  

Thanks for your input.  I had reconsidered the possibility of 
future contributions until someone claimed, earlier today, that 
DU encourages sport hunting.  Would you consider such a claim to be 
accurate?  

> ...
jkb> Lastly, someone stated that they had never seen a banquet 
jkb> advertised at an AR activity.  I believe if the individual will 
jkb> refer to a previous post on a scheduled AR activity, a banquet 
jkb> (including meat on the menu) and a dance were listed.  

I find this very difficult to believe.   Would you mind reposting
the pertinent paragraph(s) of the article in question?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My Column On Hunting.
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:59:36 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul21.054057.9700@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.120745.6598@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>brain shots.  On other game, such shots are usually considered to risky.  
>>From what I've read a wounded elephant is something to be avoided at *all* 
>>costs, for the obvious reasons. :-)
>>
>>Hope this helps some.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>-- 
>>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>>DOD #0069
> 
> And there you go being reasonable again. Are there two different people
> posting from your account John, or am I just not reading the attribution
> lines carefully enough?

Neither.  I suspect that if you examine the posts you've made that I've 
been 'unreasonable' in response to, and I'm willing to admit there may be 
some, you'll find something in there that hit a nerve, if you look closely. 
 I can at times be very sarcastic and acerbic.  Especially when I feel 
provoked.

-- 
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: HARES; INTUBATION; ZOOS; FUR
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:13:01 GMT

 proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>	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!

	Of course it does -- it stops the practice they were bitching about.
And guess what?  It doesn't infringe on anybody in the process!  Good idea.

>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.      

	Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.  Tell me, would you buy them
or just go to war over the concept?  There were others, but what is it worth
to you?  Is that enough to infringe on another?

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

	It did, about the time they figured they could win the drug war by
just passing a few laws and ignoring the profit potential.  I didn't
vote for either of them, BTW.

<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: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 22:54:56 GMT


In a previous article, jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) says:

>just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
>in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>experimentation?
>
>
>	Thanks 
>		Eric
>

No, sorry.  Experiments using animals are already regulated six ways from
Sunday and hoppled even more in every conceivable manner.  The question
should be rather: "Is there a compromise that can be made between the truth
and "animal rights" disinformation designed to destroy vital biomedical
research?"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:06:33 GMT


From article <13460@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
js> If you don't want to donate to DU or other such groups, fine.  
js> But don't stop donating.  There are other groups that probably 
js> have a different mix of hunters and nonhunters, such as Audobon 
js> and the Nature Conservancy.  I suspect though, that unless a 
js> group has a political anti-hunting agenda (and I don't believe 
js> the above groups do, though I could be wrong), you won't be able 
js> to get away from hunters as I'm sure they donate to groups like 
js> the above as well.  

I support quite a few organizations that are not anti-hunting, 
just as I support quite a few public health organizations that 
are not anti-meat-eating.  

On the other hand, I see no reason to support any organization 
that's inclined to miscast financial contributions from people 
like myself as votes in favor of sport hunting.  To wit, I think 
it's quite dishonest for pro-hunting advocates to pretend that 
the money I spend on Duck Stamps or Ducks Unlimited is a sign of 
the goodwill and generosity of hunters.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:46:57 GMT

Kenneth D. Whitehead writes:

[stuff Jennifer L. Johnson wrote about AR conference in Texas deleted,
 along with other stuff]

>Hope all you Lone Start hunters take a special interest in this conference;  
>maybe you need to pay them a visit and give these people a taste of the kind 
>of "opening day antics" they've been subjecting hunters to for years.  

Ken,

     While this is an amusing thought to entertain, I would personally
consider stooping to the level of such AR folk to be *quite* beneath
me.  'Nuff said. ;-)


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: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:29:11 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

> I guess that what I hate is the infliction of pain, distress, violence
> and death on unwilling participants. Now, it is possible that I am
> wrong in thinking that significant amounts of these occur to the
> animals that are hunted. 
> 
> I can't help wondering: if hunters hate killing as much as you say, then
> why do they do it? Why not get into, say, wildlife photography instead?
> I don't
> pretend to understand the pyschology of hunting, but it would seem to me
> that you could have much the same experience but culminating in pressing
> a camera shutter instead of pulling a trigger? - The stalking is still 
> there, the elements of skill and patience, the time spent in nature, etc.
> Presumably this would not be a comparable experience for you; I am curious
> as to why not.

Well, it would probably be very comparable for me, with the exception of a 
couple of points.  First, I wouldn't feel that I had helped to reduce the 
herd at all, and thus reduce the potential for starvation among the 
animals.  Secondly, I just don't think that the negatives would make a very 
good venison stew.....

> 
> Paul
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: OPPOSITION; CATTLEMEN; WASHINGTONIAN
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:20:56 GMT


OPPOSITION; CATTLEMEN; WASHINGTONIA
 
 
* Washingtonian Apologizes - In February, 1990, "Washingtonian"
magazine printed a vindictive attack on animal protection groups by
Katie McCabe.  McCabe alleged that Alex Pacheco, of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, had staged a photo of a monkey in a
laboratory, and raised financial allegations about PETA.  The
article was frequently distributed by proponents of animal
experimentation.  In December, 1991, the magazine apologized for
McCabe's article, admitting that much of it was not truthful.  The
monkey photo was, in fact, real, the financial allegations were not
supported by independent audits, and other statements made by
McCabe were wrong.  The "Washingtonian" printed a two-page
"correction and clarification" and made a donation to an animal
protection group.
 
* Cattlemen Give PCRM a "Black Hat" - "National Cattlemen" magazine
has listed PCRM among its top ten "Black Hats" for those making
headlines unfriendly to the beef industry.  PCRM took third place
for our New Four Food Groups proposal.  Also among those getting
"Black Hats" were Oklahoma Congressman Mike Synar, People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Harvard University's Walter Willett,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Dr. Richard Adamson
of the National Cancer Institute.  Among the beef-pushing "White
Hats": McDonald's, Hardee's, and the Secretary of Agriculture.
 
 From: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
 PO Box 6322, Washington, DC 20015
 PCRM Update: Spring 1992
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My Column On Hunting.
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:19:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>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 ...

There's a VERY good reason for it.  If you ever see a turkey in the air, the
chances are about 99% that you've flushed him, and he's flying AWAY from you.
In that particular angle, it's basically impossible to make a clean kill on
a turkey, because they're so big.  Now, the second reason is that it's a BIG
no-no to kill a hen turkey, and when they're flying, it's difficult to tell
which is which.

As far as all this arguing about if it's acceptable to shoot ducks on the
water, or quail on the ground, it depends on how you're hunting.  Hunting
Gambel's Quail without a dog basically dictates that you will take a ground
shot from WAY off to get the birds up where you can do something with them.
These long 'dust-em' shots rarely ever kill or even wound a bird.  With ducks,
if you're hunting with a tolling dog, like the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling
Retreiver, then shooting them on the water is the way it's done.  The dog
lures the ducks in, and you take the first one on the water, and waste the
rest of your shells missing the rest of the ducks as they leave.  <G>


-- 
Todd++;
refrig@dixie.com

"Others may hate you ... but they cannot beat you ... unless you hate them.
 Then you destroy yourself."     ----  Richard M. Nixon
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 23 Jul 92 13:13:53
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 23 Jul 92 04:13:29 GMT

In article <BrtqEJ.7wy@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   From article <RIGG.92Jul22122740@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Killing a number of animals from a non-endangered species, no harm is
   tr> done to the species as a whole.  In fact, such culling often helps the
   tr> species.  The result is that everyone that enjoys seeing those animals
   tr> and the habitat that supports those animals is better off.  In
   tr> contrast, killing enough to cause extinction does irreversible harm to
   tr> the ecosystem that depended on that species.  
   tr> 
   tr> Perhaps I am missing something.  But the above distinction seems quite
   tr> obvious. 

   As I mentioned to Sue Bishop the other day, much of our society's 
   difficulty in dealing with environmental problems stems from our 
   tendency to conjure up personhood where it does not exist while 
   ignoring personhood where it clearly does exist.  

   You seem to be assuming that a "Species-as-a-Whole" is a person 
   of sorts, and therefore entitled to better treatment than we 
   would provide for individuals.  Why is it ok to kill a billion 
   thinking/feeling individuals, but not ok to kill the last few 
   examples of a mindless class construct like an "whale species"
   or "owl species" or whatever?  

I do not understand why I "seem" to be making this assumption.  If I
kill a deer (especially a doe) in Wisconsin, the herd is healthier,
there may be fewer car deaths, and the habitat will be in better
shape.  The only short-term effects will be beneficial.  There will be
no long term effects.  In 5 (or 50) years, there will be little impact
of my hunting.  However, if I were to kill enough of a species to
cause extinction, there is the obvious long-term effect that the
extinct species will not be around to fill its niche in the ecosystem.
Why do you keep ignoring this distinction?

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: FARM ANIMALS CONFERENCE
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:19:02 GMT



                   FARM ANIMALS CONFERENCE
 
The Iowa Alliance for Animals announces the first Midwest Regional Animal
Rights conference, to be held in Des Moines, Iowa on October 9-10, 1992.
 
The theme of the conference is "Farm Animals: What is Their Future in
American Agriculture?"  Speakers include Jeremy Rifkin, author of Beyond
Beef; Jim Mason, author of Animal Factories; and Dr. T. Colin Campbell of
Cornell University, director of the widely publicized Chinese diet study.
 
The conference is sponsored by grassroots animal rights and animal welfare
organizations in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Missouri. For
information or to receive conference registration materials, call
515/233-5347 or write to:
 
 Iowa Alliance for Animals
 P.O. Box 1263 Welch Ave. Station
 Ames, IA  50010
 



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:27:31 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA


 (John S. Van Etten) writes:
> I find it quite hypocritical for people that eat meat to say I'm some
>sort of Bad Person (tm) for hunting while they're sitting there
>>munching on a burger or a steak.  
 
1. Personally, I wouldn't say you're a Bad Person for hunting. On the other 
hand, I would say that however ethical your actions currently are, they would 
be even more ethical if you didn't hunt (assuming you didn't substitute 
something worse). There are two key points I'm trying to make here:
 
   1. In discussions of ethics I think it's important to realize that we're
      "judging" actions, not people.
 
   2. Good vs Bad, Right vs Wrong - trying to divide the ethical world into
      just two buckets is both philosophically simplistic and politically
      divisive. Even the best of actions can be made better, even the worst 
      can be made worse. I much prefer to discuss Better vs Worse.
 
Note: I realize you disagree with my feelings re. the "ethicality" of 
hunting. My point here was not to try to argue for my version, but to suggest 
alternate ways of discussing ethics (i.e. the two points above).
 
 
2. The hypocrisy of the messenger doesn't change the truth of the message. 
The logical conclusion of your complaint about hypocrisy is that only those 
that are ethically perfect can comment about ethics. Do you really want to 
cut off all possible discussion of ethics?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunters legitimate concern
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:16:51 GMT


From article <14268mINNr51@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
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.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I agree with you that everyone should listen to facts and reason.
rl> 
rl> Unfortunately, many people choose to ignore empirical and rational
rl> arguments whenever and whereever those arguments conflict with their
rl> own peculiar beliefs.
rl> 
rl> I have a question for you, Mr Linan: Are you willing to listen to 
rl> facts and reason?  Or, do you still contend that beliefs and 
rl> truths are one and the same?  eg, "I believe it, therefore it 
rl> must be true".  

From article <14kbopINNcke@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I think most people feel their beliefs are the truth and have no reason
ml> to believe otherwise unless evidence is produce to prove their beliefs
ml> wrong.  Often times it is not that black and white though.

Perhaps.  Let's suppose that you were confronted by a woman who 
told you that she was a messenger of the Goddess Diana and that 
Diana had instructed her to tell you that your hunting practices 
are offensive, not only to Diana herself, but to the rest of the Olympian 
Gods as well.  In view of the fact that you'd be hardpressed to 
disprove such claims, would you consider them to be examples of 
"facts and reason"?  

To the extent that we confuse mere beliefs with facts and reason,
are we not allowing ourselves to be mislead by all sorts of lies
and insanities?

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

ml> I don't think I ever said cattle had "no" bearing on the water 
ml> shortage in California.  What I did was dispute the claim that 
ml> there would not be a shortage if it wasn't for cattle and I 
ml> disputed that cattle production was the major source of water 
ml> consumption...  I am suspect of the 
ml> motives of many ARs who all too often attack the activities they 
ml> do not agree with first without looking at the big picture with 
ml> an open mind.  

Are you sure that it's the AR advocates, and not yourself, who's 
guilty of failing to see the big picture?

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