HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:43:42 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... We both agree that "killing and eating" is
rl> perfectly "natural", but the natural simile ends when the nature
rl> and extent of the killing is grossly modified by technology.  You
rl> may choose to ignore the differences, but human predation and
rl> wolf predation are quite dissimilar in terms of the impact which
rl> they have on the prey.

From article <1992Sep1.142031.18027@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Would you expand on this last sentence?  In what way are they 
ja> dissimilar?  Are you saying wolves only prey on the sick and weak?  
ja> Evidence supporting this difference?  Human predation admittedly 
ja> *may* be different (e.g.large scale market hunting as with the 
ja> bison) but I take your statement to mean in all cases.  

I'm specifically addressing the predatory relationship between
wolf and deer.  I'd strongly recommend that you read Mowat, Farley,
_Never Cry Wolf_, which will give you quite a few insights into
the difference between human and wolf predation.  It's short, 
interesting, and informative.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:32:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.154150.11709@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Ro
bert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>If you're saying that ARs fail to appreciate that there is incredible
>suffering within the natural world, then you're probably wrong.  ARs do
>realize this and they also realize that a certain amount of cruelty is
>human-caused and preventable.
>
>Granted it may not make a difference to the natural world, but don't you
>agree that the amount suffering and the method of death make a big
>difference to the deer?  ... just like the amount of pain you suffer and
>the method by which you die, though irrelevant to the natural world,
>are probably very important to you.

Yes. I once lived in a place where animals were slaughtered in the presence
of other animals.  In particular, one beautiful prize ram was being
kept around and fed choice food to be fattened up for his ultimate
demise.  He witnessed a succession of smaller and less impressive
animals have their throats cut, gasp for breath, twitch and expire--
right in front of him.  To the extent that I'm using the right word, the
animal clearly went "insane" from his experiences.   I was there when
he was killed; he knew it was coming, I felt the animals's panic and
sensed its level of comprehension of what was happening to it.

[The man to whom Mr. Black was addressing added the following]

>> To give deer (or other animals)
>>human characteristics and compare how they react with how we react to
>>stimuli is a human device. Eg. deer flee from danger, it is a survival
>>response. They cannot "fear" that danger or death, because they cannot
>>understand or even conceptualize death. most people have an overblown fear
>>of death. They characterize it as evil and bad.

To which I will state--I don't agree.  And I agree that effective
communication is not achieved by calling people you're addressing "assholes."


>No.  An AR position would be more like this: if you cause or have some
>control over the suffering and death of an animal (human or nonhuman),
>then you have some associated ethical responsibility.
>

Isn't a main tenet of Buddhism that to live is to suffer.  I respect your
belief in the moral imperative not to add to suffering, also a Buddist tennet.  
If I could take you out into the woods Mr. Black, crest a hill and find a 
beautiful buck foraging unknowing of our presence, skillfully stalk the animal 
and sight in your high powered rifle, have you pull the trigger accurately on 
the prime kill spot, and watch the animal drop in its tracks, suffer seconds
of pain and die, would you join me in eating the animal?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Wild Bird Legislation
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:17:00 GMT



>From the PETA Action Line - (301)770-8980:
 
+ The House of Representatives passed the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992
(H.R. 5013) just before adjourning for the Labor Day recess. Now the Senate
will decide whether or not to support the bill. You can find out where your
representatives stand on this important and life saving legislation by
contacting their offices. Also, you can contact the following important
individuals on the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Protection and find
out if they will adopt (H.R. 5013).
 
Max Baucaus, Chairman (MT)               John H. Chafee (RI)
Daniel P. Moynihan (NY)                  Alan K. Simpson (WY)
George J. Mitchell (ME)                  Dave Durenberger (MN)
Frank J. Lautenberg (NJ)                 John Warner (VA)
Bob Graham (FL)                          James M. Jeffords (VT)
Joseph I. Lieberman (CT)                 Steve Symms (ID)
Howard M. Metzenbaum (OH)
 
Remember that the conditions for birds in the pet trade are so bad that 83
airlines, including all U.S. carriers have stopped transporting wild-caught
birds.  In one shipment alone 10,000 birds were dead on arrival.
 
+ Please write to Governor Campbell of South Carolina and thank him for his
support of H3207, which prohibits the display of wild caught or captive bred
sea mammals state wide.  Write to:
 
Governor Carroll Campbell           Honorable John Land
P.O. Box 11369                      S.C. Senate
Columbia, SC  29211                 404 Gressette Building
                                    Columbia, SC  29202
 
Honorable Richard Quinn             Honorable Ken Corbett
S.C. House of Representatives       S.C. House of Representatives
1600 Gervals Street, Suite A        P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, SC  29201                 Columbia, SC  29211
 
Honorable Alex Harvin
S.C. House of Representatives
P.O. Box 11867
Columbia, SC  29211
 



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:21:02 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Can you distinguish between gunshots and thunder?  How about a 
ds> 12ga and a .22?  We're not exactly prey animals, either, and 
ds> hence our abilities in this area probably haven't been increased 
ds> through evolution to the same extent that those of deer have.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please explain how/why you think evolution would help an animal
rl> distinguish between the explosions produced by 12 gauge shotguns
rl> and the explosions produced by 22 rifles.

From article <1992Sep2.140010.1062@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> Need I remind you, Russell, your claim was no difference between 
ja> thunder and gunshots.  Dan is obviously pointing out that there 
ja> is not only a difference between those, but even a recognizeable 
ja> difference between types of guns.  

It seemed to me that Dan was suggesting that "evolution" --- that 
great "deus ex machina" for folks who can't back up their assumptions
about animal behavior --- could somehow "prepare" an organism to make 
esoteric distinctions between thunder and gunfire.  

> ...
rl> Why should the smell of humans be associated with danger by default?
rl> 
rl> Why should deer associate gunshots with danger, but not associate
rl> thunder with danger?

ja> And here it is again.  This question has been answered well 
ja> several times.  You are being incredibly stubborn on this one 
ja> point.  There is a difference, deer know the difference.  

So you say.  I suppose we could test your theory by playing back 
sounds of thunder, firecrackers, loud music, and so on, to see if 
deer really do understand the significance of gunfire.  It may be 
the case that they do understand the significance, but I haven't 
seen any convincing evidence to support the claim.  Moreover, the 
class of individuals who make such claims often turn out to be 
advocates of the notion that the "stupid" deer who don't 
understand the significance somehow deserve to die.  Perhaps the 
assumptions are self-serving.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:55:20 GMT


In article <Btx1w2.3ps@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Meanwhile, please address my previous question.  If a particular 
rl> hunter has sought to influence the sort of practices that 
rl> effectively increase deer fertility while destabilizing the food 
rl> supply, isn't it hypocritical for the same man to turn around the 
rl> following winter and cite "overpopulation" as an ethical excuse 
rl> for hunting?  

From article <RIGG.92Sep1173033@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Some hunters work for extremely high and unstable populations of deer.
tr> I am not one of those hunters and I do not support such actions.
tr> Creating an artificially high and unstable deer population is
tr> unethical in and of itself.

Would it be safe for me to presume that you would not be opposed
to practices that would naturally lower deer fertility, even though
such practices would lower the available "crop"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:40:18 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Consider the example I mentioned previously.  Let's suppose you
rl> have a room that's infested with cockroaches, some of which prefer
rl> sunlit walls and some of which prefer dark crevasses.  If you kill
rl> the roaches that prefer light, would it be reasonable for an 
rl> observer to say that the remaining bugs had "learned" to hide?

From article <1992Sep1.142827.18319@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> I think both mechanisms are probably at work.  Individual animals 
ja> can sometimes be recognized by their tracks, habits, and in the 
ja> case of bucks, distinctive antlers.  Behavioral changes in 
ja> response to hunting pressure have been observed.  

Would you mind pointing me to some evidence?  In the case I mentioned,
it's clear that the roaches that love the dark had not simply learned
to hide.  Rather, the observer had merely fooled himself into assuming
that such learning had taken place.

ja> Behavior which 
ja> is learned or inherited and has a high survival value would 
ja> acertainly be expected to be passed on.  

Please explain how behavior that is learned would be passed along 
in deer.  In view of the fact that the average population of the
deer herd in the US is extremely young [thanks to hunting], I don't
understand how/why anyone would appeal to transmitted knowledge
(aka "culture") to explain deer behavior.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:45:03 GMT



Two abstracts on the topic of linking violence against animals
and violence against humans: 

**********

Childhood cruelty toward animals among criminals and non-criminals
Stephen R. Kellert and Alan R. Felthous
Human Relations V. 38, No. 12, pp. 1113-1129

This paper examines the relationship between childhood cruelty toward animals
and aggressive behaviour among criminals and noncriminals in adulthood.

Data were derived from personal interviews with 152 criminals and non-criminals
in Kansas and Connecticut. A standardized, closed, and open-ended interview,
requiring approximately 1-2 hourse to complete, was administered to all
subjects. Aggressiveness was defined by behavioural criteria rather than reason
for incarceration.

Childhood cruelty toward animals occurred to a significantly greater degree
among aggressive criminals than among nonaggressive criminals or noncriminals.
Additionall, the occurrence of more than 40 cases of extreme animal cruelty
facilitated the development of a preliminary classification of nine distinct
motivations for animal cruelty. Finally, family violence, particularly
paternal abuse and alcoholism, were significantly more common among aggressive
criminals with a history of childhood cruelty toward animals.

*********

Violence against animals and people: Is aggression against living creatures
generalized?
Alan R. Felthous and Stephen R. Kellert
Bull. Am. Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 14, N0. 1, 1986.

An association between childhood cruelty to animals and dangerous aggression
against people at a later age could have important implications regarding early
detection and treatment, preventive psychiatry, and a social ethic that
encourages positive attitudes toward living creatures in general. Research
reports in the literature are inconsistent and inconclusive regarding a
possible relationship between animal cruelty and aggression against people.
Although a single act is not predictive of another act, a pattern of
substantial animal abuse may conceivably be associated with a pattern of
recurrent violence directed against people. In the present study, extensive
interview schedules were administered to aggressive criminals, nonaggressive
criminals, and noncriminals. The nature of abuse was described for each subject
who gave a history of substantial abuse. A clear relationship was found
between early substantial abuse and recurrent violence against people.
Possible explanations for conflicting results in the literature are
discussed.

**********

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Premium Standard Farms
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:56:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.132026.10035@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>bg> It is a very efficient farm, but it's not a "factory farm." I 
>>bg> tend to believe that there are no factory farms in America, just 
>>bg> in the imaginations of Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco.  
>
>>I personally visited a poultry production facility that I would 
>>describe as a factory farm.  Was I dreaming?    An old friend of mine
>>is a USDA inspector in New England and he visits such farms every
>>day.  Is he dreaming as well?
>
>There's a fine line between 'dreaming' and 'deluding'.  You must have been
>deluding yourself, and the fellow from Kansas was 'dreaming'.
>
>Honestly, Russell, is it really time for another nit-picking session on the
>various levels of perception that the AR INDUSTRY relies on for thier
>propaganda machine?  Quick, where's my dictionary so I can look up 'Factory'
>and find out just what they and you mean by 'factory farm'.   Get a life.

If anyone is really this uninformed about the term "factory farm" and is
unaware that it has been around for a while as a way of referring to
specific types of farms, then they owe it to themselves to take a look
at source material like OLD MacDONALD'S FACTORY FARM by C. David Coats
or ANIMAL FACTORIES by Jim Mason and Peter Singer.  These books are short,
easy to read and shouldn't overly tax the mind.

Whether or not you think these farms really exist or agree with the
ethics of these farms, at least try to get a glimmer of what the term
means before assuming that there are some nit-picking levels of
perception at work here. 

---
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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:21:37 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> One more point: As I've mentioned previously, I've seen at least 
rl> two references in hunting texts and magazines which specifically 
rl> addressed the fact that deer "harvests" (aka fertility) can be 
rl> increased by means of forest management practices that increase 
rl> the amount of food available to deer in the spring and summer 
rl> months, ie more food means more fat, which means more fawns.  Now 
rl> let's suppose that a game manager has taken advantage of these 
rl> practices in order to produce plenty of singletons among one year 
rl> old adolescent does and a bountiful "crop" of twin fawns among 
rl> the older females.  If the increased population produces the 
rl> threat of starvation the following winter, would it be reasonable 
rl> for the game manager to cite the threat of starvation as a 
rl> rationale for sport hunting?  Or, would you agree with me that 
rl> such a rationale is flimsy and transparent?  

From article <RIGG.92Sep1131911@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> There is no doubt that forest management practices and farming can
tr> cause deer populations to explode by increasing fertility.  However,
tr> the decision to clearcut much of northern Wisconsin is not made by
tr> hunters.  It is made by pulp and paper mills.  Similarly, I doubt that
tr> farmers in the southern part of the state care what hunters want.

Perhaps.  In a few weeks, I'm going to post some documents which 
will show that some hunters have sought to influence forest 
management policies in ways that would, in fact, contribute to 
overpopulation, and hence, increase the need for greater 
"harvests".  

tr> Clearcuts and farm fields have combined with extremely mild winters to
tr> cause deer herds to explode in Wisconsin.  A harsh winter or a reduced
tr> kill (due to bad weather during hunting season) would result in
tr> extensive, long-lasting damage to winter habitat and a very large
tr> winter kill.

I agree with you that clearcutting and farm crops would create
such problems in places like Wisconsin.

tr> There are several solutions to this problem:
tr> 
tr> 1.)  Stop clearcutting and growing crops.  Reduce the market for corn
tr> and paper and this might work.
tr> 
tr> 2.)  Just say doe!  By culling a large number of does, hunters can
tr> balance the herd.  This is the solution that the DNR and most hunters
tr> (including myself) support.
tr> 
tr> Any other suggestions?

Yes.  I do have some other suggestions, but I'm going to ask you
to be patient in awaiting them.

Meanwhile, please address my previous question.  If a particular 
hunter has sought to influence the sort of practices that 
effectively increase deer fertility while destabilizing the food 
supply, isn't it hypocritical for the same man to turn around the 
following winter and cite "overpopulation" as an ethical excuse 
for hunting?  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:36:36 GMT

In <BtzoE0.4GA@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a 
>high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?
>Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation 
>between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
>diabetes?

	I just wanted to point out that I am greatly heartened at the
way Russ responded to the thread.  Instead of ethical implications, he
is pointing out health implications.  While I don't assume Russ has at
all given up his ethical reasons for not eating meat, I find it highly
refreshing to see that he is encouraging others to do so by showing
health "facts" (*) and not some ethical pondering that can be easily ignored.

	Naturally, I don't care what nurses think. ;-)  They may look cute
in those hats and skirts, but oh! what they can do with a needle!

<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: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:16:54 GMT

In article <BtrxF6.496@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Did you miss the part where the author pointed out that lower levels of
rl> adipose tissue will obliterate fertility altogether?

From article <RIGG.92Aug31102914@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> The author stated that lower levels _can_ prevent fertility.  The
tr> extremely undernourished and relatively fat-free women of some
tr> developing countries show that fertility is not prevented.  It is just
tr> lowered. 

Please name one of these countries and explain why you think that 
the relative absence of fat didn't prevent fertility.

rl> When you say the population will "explode", are you referring to 
rl> a two-fold increase?  a four-fold increase?  an eight-fold 
rl> increase?  If the fertility has been lowered when the population 
rl> is at 1N, thanks to the impact of diminished caloric intake on 
rl> adipose tissue, it seems to me that it would be pretty tough for 
rl> the deer population to continue to "explode" to 2N, or 4N, or 8N.  
rl> If you disagree, please explain.  

tr> The caloric intake was "perfect" for 1N.  The reduced fertility won't
tr> even start taking effect until 2N or 4N.  So, the population would
tr> continue to grow at least past that point.

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the caloric intake was 
5,000 calories per day/individual, and let's assume that this figure
included sufficient excess calories for the individuals to build and
then maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the caloric intake,
and hence fatness, if the population were to increase to 2N or 4N?

rl> Would you be willing to abandon your hunting practices if/when we 
rl> can thoroughly prove that the cessation of hunting would not 
rl> culminate in starvation?  If not, then the issue at stake isn't 
rl> really an argument as far as you're concerned but an "excuse" or
rl> "rationale".  As such, your displays of indignation seem rather 
rl> transparent to me.  

tr> I have said many times that I do not hunt to thin the herd.  I hunt
tr> for _me_ (and to a lesser extent, my family).  I am happy the herd is
tr> healthier but that is not why I hunt.  My sole reason for continuing
tr> with this thread is to correct inacuracies and errors in your posts.

Fair enough.  I'm looking forward to your explanations.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:00:13 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <lbqy_5m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>     One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
>list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
>disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
>of their vote, as well. 

I was 16.6% of the pro-Ferrell vote, but I didn't send John a copy
of my vote. I didn't send a copy to George Bush or to the Sec General
of the United Nations, either. What has "guts" got to do with it?

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals