HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:38:12 GMT

>> 
>>-- How much money is spent on animal research in the US each year?
>>-- How many americans receive little or no health care because of 
>>   financial disabilities?
>
>Currently, our health care system spends less than 2% of its annual budget
>on research of ANY type.  For an industry as dependent on high technology
>as health care, this figure should be AT LEAST 10%.  And I fail to see the
>connection between animal research and those americans who are unable to
>afford health care.  I'm as infuriated as anyone that so many americans
>go without adequate health care, but whether or not we fund research in this
>country has nothing to do with it!
>

It most certainly does. There is a limited amount of money available (taxes)
to run government and entitlement programs. Corporations and private
individuals have similar limitations. In case you haven't noticed, you can only
spend your dollars once. A given amount of money available for the health
industry is divided between health care, research, bureaucracy, and whatever 
else is funded. I don't work in the health field, and don't mean to come off as
if I think I'm an expert, but the economic facts of life don't vary greatly.
Money spent on research is money not available for something else, pure and 
simple. It may be argued that research will pay off in the long run. I'm not 
denying that. But the allocation of these limited funds to competing needs will
always be debateable.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Research
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:37:40 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1992Sep15.211707.24752@cs.wisc.edu> andrewt@scrooge.cs.wisc.edu (An
drew Thomas-cramer) writes:
>
>     * The suggestion that animal torture is legitimized because it is
>    medically useful. The same argument could be used to legitimize
>    the human experiments of the Nazis, Japanese and the United States.
>

How are you using your above phrase "animal torture"?  Could you define your
usage?  Medical researchers using mice; is that falling under your use
of the phrase "animal torture"?  Or, were you referring to head trauma
research on higher primates and the like?  Please clarify.  Interesting
article.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rlt@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (r l taylor)
Subject: Re: PeTA ACTION LINE
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:59:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.133717.10258@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:

$ Thanks for the phone numbers.  I personally called all three of these
$ numbers this morning to advise them that PeTA had targeted them for 
$ possible telephone harassment, Ferrell's disclaimer about "being polite"
$ notwithstanding.  Businesses pay for WATTS (800) lines in order to make
$ it easier for their customers to do business with them, not to make it
$ easier for ARFs to target them.

Maybe that's why we never see an 800 number for PETA?  Bet they'd scream
if they had to pay for phone calls from people who disagree with them.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Factory Farming Seminar
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:56:57 GMT

wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

>AAVS to Host Factory Farming Seminar

>   The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) will host a seminar on
>factory farming issues.  The seminar will
>serve two purposes: to educate participants thoroughly about modern
>intensive animal agribusiness practices and to provide information about
>actions that advocates can take to protect animals used for food and to
>promote vegetarianism.

	What?  Thorough education should also promote proper animal
husbandry and show the best methods of maximizing weight gain per unit
of cost for said animals.

>   Speakers at the seminar will include Jim Mason, co-author with Peter
>Singer of _Animal Factories_; Gene Bauston of Farm Sanctuary; Alex
>Hershaft of the Farm Animal Reform Movement; Henry Spira of Animal
>Rights International; Karen Davis of United Poultry Concerns; and other
>noted activists and leaders in animal protection.

	It's interesting to note that nobody from the Dairy, Cattleman's,
Beef Council, or anybody else who makes a living from these practices and
might be in a position to refute claims from the above speakers has been
invited.  A lack of balanced lectures generally indicates a lack of facts
and an inability to refute the other side's arguments.

<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: w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Animal Research
Date: 14 SEP 92 12:51:05 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
NNTP-Posting-Host: msnews.wustl.edu


Here at Washington University in St. Louis, I have been a part of organizing
a group of medical and graduate students into a group called "Animal Research
in Science and Education", or ARISE.  We aim to teach the public about the
true nature of animal research - how and why it is carried out, and why we
feel animal research must be allowed to continue.  We also devote considerable
effort to address the half-truths and outright lies concerning animal research
which groups like PETA and PCRM spread on a daily basis.

We have been quite successful over the last year, and we would be more than
happy to speak to anyone interested in setting up a similar orginazation.


Animal Research Saves Lives!!!!!

J.Cook

w95_cook@wums.wustl.edu
Washington University in St. Louis
School of Medicine

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:40:44 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

Hey!!  In amidst all the ruckus, I clean forgot!

In true Russell style, the issue of the missing Email has been glossed over,
left out, forgotten conveinently, now that I've tried to jog his memory.

Hey Russell, didn't my sequence of events trigger any brain cells?  From your
reaction, I would guess it did - ordinarily, if you think you've got a chance,
you dog some nitpicky little issue like that to death, just to try and make
the other person look foolish.  Come on, Russell, call me a liar again - I just
might have that message here after all.

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Iowa Conference
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:24:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu


In article <1992Sep10.135707.11015@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
Mike linan writes:

(Bunch of stuff deleted)

>>Not too long ago you and I were engaged in a e-mail debate and you stated
>>that your business was not doing so well for the last few years.  I was
>>just curious as to how long you have been subscribing to t.p.a.  Perhaps
>>if you spent more time managing your business and less time on t.p.a. you
>might find yourself in the black.  Just some friendly advice old pal. :-)



>WHAT???!!!  You mean Russell is gainfully employed?  And here I thought he was
>an idle student, given the sheer volume of his postings and the time obviously 
>expended on them;  hope you aren't doing this from work, Russell.  I post
>from work, but I compose my postings on breaks.  If he IS posting from work, I 
>can't help thinking that he must be using up an awful of of company-paid time 
>time to to pursue his little hobby. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but if not, I 
>have one question.  Is this ETHICAL? ;-)


You know, now that I give it some thought, I wonder if russell@wpg.com is   
the address of his own business.  If so, that would mean that Linda is 
Russell's employee.  One the other hand, if wpg.com is not Russell's business,
when does he find time to work for an employer and manage his own business
as well?  Unless he wasn't totally truthful in his claim that he owned his
own business.  Naw, Russell wouldn't try to deceive me.  Would he?


Mike Linan
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:15:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <7bs802En213401@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.054217.13548@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, 
>swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG) writes:
>
>>      "Phase One" involves attempts by groups such as the Peninsula
>> Humane Society and Fund For Animals to ban pet breeding across the
>> nation. As John Hoyt of HSUS demands, "Don't breed, don't buy, don't
>> even accept giveaways."
>
>Did these groups work to "ban" breeding, or merely to reduce it by levying a 
>fee? In the case of the San Mateo County ordinance dealing with this, I 
>believe it was the latter, which is a far cry from a ban.

On September 3, 1992 at the Borders Bookshop in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois
Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, at a promotional appearance for her book stated
that PETA was opposed to the breeding of companion animals, and that the
practice of breeding animals for pets or for specific characteristics
should be stopped.
>
>BTW - I've heard that Ingrid is a very soft-spoken individual. I find it hard 
>to believe that she "snarled" anything. Did you hear her snarl yourself? Did 
>someone else? Or did you make this up? If so, can we then assume that all 
>other desriptions of what Ingrid said/did are similarly invented/distorted?

You said you've "heard" about Ingrid.  I have met her.  When I asked her
how she could reconcile the placing of "liberated" laboratory animals
in homes as pets, when she had been quoted as saying that pet ownership
was an abomination, she "snarled" at me and accused me of "not being
part of the Animal Rights movement" and called the quote (from the
Washingtonian) "propaganda".  Another woman from the audience waved a
copy of the Chicago Tribune (a fine and respected newspaper), where an
article showed a similar quote, and echoed my questioning of her position
on the "pet issue".  That is when Ingrid said that breeding should be
outlawed, only "disadvantaged animals from pounds" should be taken as
"companion animals", and criticized the policy of chaining dogs in
yards.  She also made the previously referenced statement about the
horrors of breeding for specific characteristics (like coloration)
and went on about how awful it was that people were now keeping pigmy
pigs as pets (saw some at a pet store, and they were fun to watch!)
and that animals are "not slaves".  I never got the chance to ask her
if animal research such as that which lead to a cure for feline
leukemia was objectionable.  Maybe next time.

As for soft spoken, she had to ask me to speak up, but everyone could hear
Ingrid.

Mary Otto
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Fund for Animals' true agenda revealed?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:23:22 GMT

Scott Wood writes:
>powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) writes:
>`What the hell is so profound about this!?
>`We all know the AR-types want to ban animal utilization in all
>`its forms and turn us into the over-urbanized, vegetarian,
>`middle-class idiots they are.

>Because they do it under the guise of animal welfare.  And many people
>who don't know any better send their money to these groups thinking they
>are looking out for the interest of animals everywhere.

If preventing the needless slaughter of animals isn't animal welfare,
what is?

>When in fact some types of hunting are necessary to control populations of
>animals.  

Why is hunting the only option?  What are the different "types of hunting" ?

>Over population of deer for example can do more harm than to
>just damage deer.  Over use of resources (food, habitat, etc.) can cause
>damage to deer populations (starvation and disease) as well as effect
>other plants and animals in their environment that depend on the same
>resources.

If management policies were aimed at expanding available habitat, promoting
decreased breeding of the species instead of providing resources for hunters,
some of the problems could be SOLVED rather than put off for a few years....

>I think of an example of a club which I belong to that openly welcomes
>Elk hunters as an elk will eat 3-4 times what a deer eats and can reach
>higher in the trees to get it (but would rather start eating lower as it
>is much easier).  Thus mw{uch of the food that could be eaten by deer
>and rabbit and such is gone due to a large localized population of elk.

Question:  Does the club encourage/discourage killing of the females?

>Since the elk hunting however, they have greatly decreased this problem,
>and in fact helped more even distribute the population of the animals
>as they do not stay in the area as much now that it is no longer a safe
>haven.
>swood

Well, at least the animals appear to be smart.  Isn't the overabundance of
elk an indication of a problem with the local ecosystem?

Rob U, I think the planet is showing some major indications of problems
--
-       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                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 13:45:28 GMT

In article <Bu2Fxw.5AM@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>Of course they have.  It wasn't all that long ago that Agni the Fire 
>God was still alive and well.  Even today, I meet people who scratch
>their heads when I ask them where fires go when the fuel is fully
>consumed.  "To heaven?", was the response I got from a young teenager
>a few weeks ago.

	OK, Russell, point well taken.  Rather than simply calling Matt's
	views "misrepresentations," how about supplying some EVIDENCE of
	that fact?  Or are you simply going to assert that he's lying and
	leave it at that?


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
From: sbishop@desire.wright.edu
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:55:55 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <viking.715665464@vincent2.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
> In <Bu2EwK.4pH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>>ds> *Two* sources?  That's it?  I can't even write a 200-level
>>ds> speech without including more sources than that.  Right!  I'm
>>ds> becoming an academic!  Seriously, I can prove that Washington, D.C.
>>ds> is the safest place on earth by using only two sources.  I'll have
>>ds> to look for these next time I'm in the library.
> 
>>Count 'em again.  While you're counting the secondary sources, be 
>>sure to include the primary sources listed in the three citations 
>>above.  I think you'll discover that they're quite extensive.  
> 
> 	My mistake, three sources.  If the secondary sources were taken into
> original account, they would list in the primary sources.  That they do not
> appear there indicates to me that they were not reviewed in any detail.
> 
>>ds> I remember a claim of each cow drinking something like thirty
>>ds> gallons of water per day.  My experience has shown ten or less is more
>>ds> the correct figure, but if you take all the water used by the garden,
>>ds> the washing machine, the shower, and the cattle, then divide by the
>>ds> number of cattle, you can see where your average will be scewed. 
> 
>>As I recall, we've discussed the amount of water required to produce
>>a pound of edible meat, but not the amount of water that a cow drinks
>>every day.   Were you assuming that the irrigation water required to
>>produce fodder and feed grain should not be counted in the consumption
>>figures?
> 

One thing people tend to forget is, that water is not lost forever.  It's
recycled as soon as the cattle eliminate it, soaks into the ground and back
into the aquafer.  And thirty gallons is an outrageous amount, my horses
need five to seven gallons (or less) a day.  Cows aren't quite as big as
horses.


Sue

> 	We discussed both, and you can count all the irrigation you want.
> In (suprise!) the vast majority of places, it isn't used, nor is it
> economically feasable to do so.  The typical suburban neighborhood of
> just a few square blocks probably uses more water on the lawn and garden
> than what a farmer can afford to pump on his fields, but quite a few
> people seem to forget this sort of usage.
> 

Most of the grain crops in the midwest are produced WITHOUT irrigation.


> <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: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:35:45 GMT

>Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>`legislators and demand to know where they stand.  If this legislation isn't
>`passed, 100,000 more dolphins will die before 1999. To call your members of
>`congress dial 202-224-3121 and ask for their office. Or write to them at:
 
Scott Wood writes:
>Just out of curiousity, how many fishermen is this going to put out of
>work and what means does this bill plan on using to save these dolphins?

Well, it has the potential of putting a lot more fishermen to work.  One
item is to limit the lengths of the drift nets.  That means more boats
will be required to pull in an equal amount of fish (which is a shame).
The shorter nets make it easier to target the school and not pull in
many "garbage" species.
 
> Keep
>in mind that the wild horse is not a natural species on this continent.  Not
>only that, but they tend to be formerly domesticated animals and thus can
>be more harmful due to a lack of fear for humans.  

Lack of fear of humans?  Just try to get close to one......

>swood
>Putting People First - Clarkston, Mi. Chapter

I'm sorry........

Rob U, environmental protection can be a money maker
--
-       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                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: News reports on Hunter deaths (was re: Serial Killer II)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:20:00 GMT

This article has hit the news in our area as well (Michigan).  Both on the
TV and in the papers.  I find it a little more than coincidence that this
article about one to two year old killings has hit the papers precisely
on the day before the opening of small game season in Michigan.

Coincedence?  I doubt it.

swood

P.S. I went out hunting anyway.


-- 
+========================+    -------_________     +=========================+
| WANTED - DEAD OR ALIVE |    o\ o \     ____|o    |  If you see this lure,  |
|  Creek Chub "Plunker"  |      \___\_-o-    viv   | PLEASE send me email!!! |
+========================+            viv          +=========================+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Subject: Re: Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:16:54 GMT

Scott Wood writes:
>                 Animal Cult Backtracks on Dog Show Attacks
>     People for the ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) national
>director Ingrid Newkirk says she wants to abolish pets.  She should
>have kept her mouth shut.  Animalists - many of them sporting PeTA
>t-shirts, banners, pickets and literature - have begun protesting dog
>shows around the country.

How is this backtracking?  It was my impression that this was always their 
policy.

>     Simultaneously, reports are flooding in to PPF from dog fancies
>that these extremists are releasing show dogs from cages and crates.
>There have also been anonymous telephone calls threatening to poison
>show dogs with antifreeze in their drinking water.

Why do these people report to the PPF and not to their local police?  I
have yet to see any "unbiased" (read official government) report on any
such allegations.  Scott, do you have one?

>     "Phase One" involves attempts by groups such as the Peninsula
>Humane Society and Fund For Animals to ban pet breeding across the
>nation. As John Hoyt of HSUS demands, "Don't breed, don't buy, don't
>even accept giveaways."

Are you aware of the motivation for this statement?  In 1991 slightly fewer
than 6 million animals were destroyed in pounds and shelters in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and LA County alone!  It makes no sense to me
to continue to breed more and more animals while so many are being destroyed
everyday.  That is itself, inhumane.

>     But the animalists' virulent antagonism toward pet owners is
>alienating those who love their pets, and diverting their
>contributions from so-called animal "rights" back to genuine animal
>welfare groups.  As a result, our sources indicate, the PeTA money
>machine lost $2 million last year.
>(courtesy of Fred Trost`s Outdoor Digest "SOS Alert!" June/July 1992)

According to the Internal Revenue Service (Form 990) PETA showed a 26% increase
in its operating budget.  Note that PETA is a non-profit organization while
PPF did not file a Form 990 (nonprofit groups) in the same period.  PPF seems
to be in it to MAKE money ...... :-)

Rob U, have your pets spayed/neutered
--
-       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                             -