HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:42:39 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Oct5151040@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>   Okay, let me quote Benke directly, rather than rely on my less-than-perfect 
>   memory and imprecise terminology:
>
>      "While collecting deer in my research, I tied baiting and had an unusual
>      experience - twice.  On two occasions spiked buck came in to my shelled
>      corn at a distance of 15 yards.  In both instances I shot while the deer
>      were broadside, with their heads lowered.  Both times the abdomen was my
>      intended target, but that wasn't where I hit them.  At the sound of the
>      shot, these deer turned 180 degrees and were struck in the back leg that
>      had been opposite me. 
>
>If his arrow passed through the animal (which is very likely), he has
>no way of knowing which was the entrance wound and which was the exit
>wound.  Perhaps the arrow hit the inside of the far thigh.

Interesting point.  So according to that theory, the 180 degree turn
occurred after the hit?  Nothing in Benke's literal words rule this
out, yet I don't think that's what he meant.  His style is generally
too direct, clear, no-nonsense, and to the point.

Also I find myself questioning the statement about the difficulty of
distinguishing between entrance and exit wounds.  Assuming one can get a
close look, is it always impossible to tell? My guess would be that
sometimes yes, sometimes no - for the hunter in the field.  A vet or
medical examiner would have a better chance.  There should be clues,
like angle of the wound channel, direction of skin displacement at both
ends of the wound channel, etc. 

Finally for those who question how far a deer can move in a split second,
Benke, in his paragraph immediately preceding the above quote, writes:

	"According to the experts, animals can completely evade an
	arrow at distances of 15 to 'less than 20 yards.' (95,147)
	This is undoubtedly true, which means they can also PARTIALLY
	[emphasis mine] evade the arrow and become wounded.

ref 95:	James, M.R. 1976.  Bowhunting for Whitetail & Mule Deer.
	Chapter 5, Drug-Tipped Arrows.  Jolex, Inc. Paramus, N.J.

ref 147: Shupienis, T. 1977, Stalking the Whitetail.  Bowhunter
	 7(1):20-26,62-63.

[...]

---
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: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:05:23 GMT

In article <bfwzbwa@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <0avz-cf@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

[...]

>...  It strikes me as odd, however, that
>we should be faulted so quickly for thinking that the head of the
>largest AR group (PETA) represents more than one person, while you AR
>folk (in general, not you specifically) seem to think the NRA speaks
>for all hunters (just to refresh our memories, there are over 17
>million licensed resident hunters in the U.S., but the NRA is still
>hoping to reach the magical 3 million member mark soon).

I don't think the NRA should speak for any hunters, except to the extent
that these hunters support the second amendment.  By becoming apologists
for hunters, they discourage those like me from helping them to reach 
their 3 million member goal. 

>
>>If you wish to make one single statement about the entire AR movement,
>>IMO it would be that "they" are united in the struggle against the most
>>egregious and the most unnecessary cruelties on all fronts. 
>
>I find this statement quite odd, Bob.  I've never seen you folks
>picket a McDonald's yet (just an example, no offense to McD's).

Did you miss the picketing of Burger King in the Buffalo area off and
on over the past few years?

>
>John

---
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: Bambi Fishing
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:29:55 GMT


From article <viking.718424789@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> 	I found something interesting in the October issue of American
ds> Rifleman.  Page 6: "HELPING THE DISABLED.  Those who think some of the
ds> animal rights terrorists are less concerned about their fellow man may
ds> find a believer in a Shawano County, Wis. farmer.  It seems that Elmer
ds> Schmidt had been letting a limited number of disabled hunters take
ds> whitetail deer on his property.  After receiving threatening letters,
ds> a petition, and, the last straw, his mailbox having been blown up,
ds> Schmidt said he will stop sponsoring hunts for the disabled.  The
ds> subject was reported in the Green Bay Gazette of July 26."

This reminds me of the crock about AR activists allegedly 
throwing blood on women who wear fur coats.  Have there been any 
arrests?  Any convictions?  If not, it seems rather silly for 
anyone to blame the threats and the blown-up mailbox on an 
unknown group of animal rights "terrorists".  Why not blame Santa 
Claus or the Easter Bunny instead?  Or perhaps we should blame 
one of the many groups whose financial interests are threatened 
by the growing debate over animal rights.  

If you consider personal attacks to be an acceptable means of 
"discrediting" your opponents, I can't help wondering if you, 
yourself, would refrain from blowing up a mailbox.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Machoism and hunters?
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:09:47 GMT

Machoism?  I know guys that are macho and water ski or play football.
I know guys that are macho and try to get up the corporate ladder as
a result.  I know guys....

Just because some of the guys are macho that hunt doesn't make it an
evil.  If they are hunting to satisfy some form of dominance, perhaps
they are ill, but evil, I say not.

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:40:00 GMT

black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

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

>>	Certainly these are groups I would have little problem with
>>accepting research from, but I do have a question: how did they define
>>"wounding" ?  I've "wounded" animals in that they required a second shot
>>to kill, and it took probably 30 seconds to reach them, so I would have
>>chalked it up as a wounding even though that animal would have died
>>fairly shortly thereafter.  I agree, the data show a large wounding rate,
>>and given the nature of bowhunting I'm not over suprised that rates are
>>so high, but I'd like to think most of those "wounded" deer ran a few
>>yards and dropped and didn't go to waste.

>However, I find myself surprised that you're "not over suprised" at the
>high rates.  Personally I WAS surprised when I heard this about a year
>ago.  And more importantly, I was alarmed - not by the prospect of any
>mythical waste, but by the completely avoidable suffering inflicted on
>animals by hunters, who I've been told care more about animals than
>antihunters do.  

	We do.  That's why I break the law and finish a deer that I've
"wounded" with the .50 by shooting it with the .45 pistol.  Yes, I
carry it not only as a weapon against tresspassers who may become violent,
but to quickly dispatch any animal not dead by the time I get to it.
This is just a few seconds, as 100 yards is at the extreme limit of my
black powder rifle so far as I'm concerned.  Thus, I'm not suprised at
the high wounding rate in bowhunting as a heart shot may be the vast
majority of the "kill" cites, and lung shots a "wounding" criteria.
Either will kill effectively and in a short amount of time, but the
lung shots take a bit longer and the deer runs farther.  If wounding
and killing were very closely defined in this poll, my reservations
would be unfounded and I'd be highly suprised at the results even
when I include the two-day-a-year hunters I loathe so much.

>If the rates are really this high, where is the care and concern from
>hunters? 

	Just to clarify, the care and concern may be where we define
a killing-in-1-minute shot as a wounding shot.

>Not necessarily.  Remember that we're discussing PERCENT of animals
>wounded by a specific technique, not absolute numbers.

	The deer harvest is quite large.  Since as many deer are wounded
as are harvested, scavengers should be about in great numbers.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:23:22 GMT

In article <Bw5spw.33G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Isn't it possible...  just possible, in another hundred years
>from now, that your great-grandchildren will be wondering how/why
>so many christians in our day and age could turn their backs on
>the suffering of non-human animals, while pretending to have
>God's approval?

>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ

You seem to be assuming that "approval from God" is the paramount
reason that Christians eat animals.  For some Christians, when asked
by Russell Lawrence about it, they'll tell you God's scriptures do
confirm the acceptability--(of something that they would do anyway).
For example, the bible says that it's OK for men and women to marry;
independent of the biblical basis of this sanction, for thousands
of years men and women have been forming family and marriage
partnerships.  Fundamentally, your argument that the bible is
responsible for animal abuse doesn't hold water, it's a gross
exaggeration of the real situation.  It's possible that 100 years
from now people will be wondering how animals could be eaten--they
won't be singling out Christians however.
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Universal ethic and meat eating
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:29:07 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

with the following ethic:

  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

 
Now here's a question for you omnivores. To provide you with meat, you or 
your agent (e.g. the butcher) almost invariably inflict pain. It seems, then, 
that either:

1. There is a second ethic that comes into play, overriding the one stated 
above
            or

2. Eating meat is less ethical than not eating meat.

Assuming you believe #1 to be the case, what is this ethic?  Can you 
formulate a crisp definition of it?

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,sci.med.nutrition
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:20:14 GMT

In article <Bw109J.4wJ@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Did Jesus force Mike to address his opponents as "Fool" and
>"Idiot"?  It seems to me that it was Mike's opponents, rather than
>Mike, who were insulted.
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


How would you measure or compare the magnitude of insult you
experience when a Christian deer hunter who believes that his
god permits him to hunt deer calls you a fool versus the same
word coming from a non-Christian non-hunter?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Russell's Tactics 
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:11:29 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Mary Otto's tactic:  Post an article that makes her opponent the subject
rl> of the conversation.
rl> 
rl> Definition of the "ad-hominem" fallacy:  An argument that attempts to 
rl> disprove the truth of an opponent's arguments by attacking the opponent.

From article <viking.718437457@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> If your credibility can be disproven this way, it is indeed a
ds> valid method of persuasion.  

It's true that fallacies can often be persuasive, but they remain
fallacies... regardless of the number of people who're fooled.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:13:43 GMT

In <BvzDuD.Hso@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>rl> Isn't it a shame that "god" said:
>rl> 
>rl>    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
>rl> 
>rl> Instead of saying something like:
>rl> 
>rl>    "Thou shalt respect the thoughts and feelings of other beings."

>From article <1992Oct11.175152.23029@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
>wc> He did.  He said 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

>Possibly.  And he may have written, "Do unto others as you would 
>have them do unto you".  Unfortunately, there are many who would 
>say that such consideration don't apply to our mammalian 
>cousins, not to mention our more distant animal relatives.  

What do you mean by possibly?  In Matthew 19:19 of the KJV Christ says:
'Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.'  Are you going to accept the Christian Bible as a source of
reference or not?  I am one of those who believes that that consideration
generally does not extend to 'our mammalian cousins'.  Can you explain or
prove to me that it should?

Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:28:48 GMT
Organization: WP Group

In article <BvsG9x.8xz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Does a cow care if you kill it?  [yes]
rl> Does a cabbage care if you kill it?  [probably not]

From article <1992Oct15.213103.25499@ncsu.edu>, by dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger):
dh> I don't see how your conclusion follows.  A cow may want
dh> to avoid the pain of being slaughtered, but this doesn't 
dh> necessarily mean that the cow "cares" whether it dies or
dh> not. A cow may not be able to understand the concept
dh> of death. 
dh> 
dh> Would a cow "care" if it were killed painlessly? Probably 
dh> not. 

This would depend on the temporal scope of the "killing".  Does 
the slaughter of a cow take place in one brief moment of time, or 
does it begin when the cow is loaded on a stock car destined 
for the feedlot, and end many bruises later in some distant 
slaughterhouse?  

I would agree with you that an entity cannot care about an event 
that it cannot perceive.  In fact, that's the main point of the 
discussion.  I hope that you will agree with me that sentience and 
sapience aren't things, but processes.  If we reduce the scope of 
an event to a fraction of the time that's necessary for the 
sensory process to register an impression, we can disable the 
works and thereby make it seem that sentience and sapience are, 
practically speaking, non-existent.  

However, these appearances are deceiving.  In a realistic time 
frame, the cow does care when she's separated from her offspring, 
or removed from the herd, or transported crosscountry in a 
crowded stock car.  And I suspect that she also cares about the 
sights, sounds, and smells of the slaughter house in those
many minutes that precede the final instant when her lights go 
out, once and for all.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:22:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.164717.15385@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.142846.27614@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.182351.15869@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct5.221442.21930@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>>>In article <viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>>>>>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>>
>>
>>Robert Black:
>>>
>>>     3.	Better training for bowhunters - This is of course the 
>>>	hunter-proposed solution.  But there are reasons for concluding
>>>	that an inordinate and unacceptable level of suffering is
>>>	inherent and can never be adequately eliminated from
>>>	bowhunting - without the use of SCC or something similar.
>>>
>>
>>Inordinate and unacceptable is a judgement call. I agree that any suffering
>>should be minimized. To what degree and at what cost is the point I disagree
>>on. I've already stated my feelings on SCC.
>
>I don't recall seeing them.  Tim objected to the idea of drug-tainted
>venison.  Is that your gripe too?
>

I think this might be addressed to my satisfaction, although I'm very leery
of it. No, my concern is for the deer. I'm afraid that less ethical hunters
would take more risky shots, with the feeling that any hit was good enough.
I find it hard to believe that all hits will give a full dose of the drug
and result in a relatively humane death. Most things mechanical have a 
failure rate. You are wanting to place this in the hands of folks probably
not qualified (in my mind at least) to use it. I think the potential
ramifications are far more serious than you may be thinking. Even the folks
who don't consider the deer's suffering presently try to make a quick kill
shot so they don't lose the deer. I would think they would also be the most
likely to not be sure of their equipment and abilities, and most likely to
take the aforementioned marginal shots in greater numbers than ever. It's 
a complex question, really, and I know I'm not really qualified to fully 
answer it yet. I'll try to gather more information.


Jeff Achenbach
From: jagged@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: What action is taking place?
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:19:49 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

Hello, a friend of mine is doing a research paper on Animal Rights,
and was wondering if I could get her some info on the actions that
have taken place to express these feelings i.e. violence, pickiting,
ect.. keep in mind that she has a nice body and the more favors I do
for her is that many more favors I get in return :) so if anyone could
help me out I would be really thankful. 
      .    _  .     _____________ 
      |\_|/__/|    /             \ 
     / / \/ \  \  / Happy! Happy! \      
    /__|O||O|__ \ \   Joy! Joy!   / 
   |/_ \_/\_/ _\ | \  ___________/      
   | | (____) | ||  |/                       
   \/\___/\__/  // _/
   (_/         ||        David Jaggers 
    |          ||\       jagged@wkuvx1.bitnet
     \        //_/   
      \______//      
     __|| __||      
    (____(____)          Stimpson J. Cat
          
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Universal ethic and meat eating
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 08:33:06 GMT


Ted Robinson writes:
tr>  The less unwanted pain I inflict, the better.

Rich Young writes:
ry> You are, of course, assuming that there is some absolute truth to
ry> the statement above.  There may well be thousands of people who
ry> do not subscribe to your postulate, which would make your questions
ry> inappropriate.

Russell Lawrence asks:
rl> Would you object if someone were to inflict unwanted pain on you?

From article <viking.718694910@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> If it were you, Russ, I would object in the most forceful, 
ds> determined, and effective methods possible.  If you had the two 
ds> letters "M.D." after your name, my reaction would be fairly 
ds> benign.  

So, what you're saying is that you'll tolerate your own pain if 
it suits your own useful purpose, but you're unwilling to 
tolerate your own pain if it suits someone else's useful purpose.  
Seems reasonable.  

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