HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:18:50 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Didn't we agree previously that the vote was irrellevant, that
ds> it amounted to censorship, and that a killfile was the way to go? 

From article <1992Aug28.123349.20939@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Dan, as I've pointed out before, I *pay* for my feed.  Now, I get 
th> mail from another source, which is not traffic-limited, so I'm 
th> not as worried about big stuff coming through there, but the fact 
th> is, at this point I'm being *FORCED* to pay for this dreck coming 
th> over the lines.  Personally, I'd rather get a flamewar between 
th> two freshmen nerds about the merits of different colors of pocket 
th> protectors, at least that'd have some entertainment value.  

No one's going to call the net-police if you drop your feed of
talk.politics.animals, Todd.   

If it's reasonable for you to pretend that your site is "forced" to
pay for postings that you don't like, then it's just as reasonable
for me to pretend that my site is "forced" to pay for postings that
I don't like.  [Hint: It's not very reasonable]

> ...
th> Here's my position - Wheeler is welcome, with ANYTHING he'd like 
th> to post, but not until he can participate in discussions about 
th> them.  As a matter of fact, if he's in the Southeast, and better 
th> yet, Georgia, I'm right here and now offering him an account on 
th> my system, FREE.  I'll email a copy of this to him so he might 
th> see it.  If he can't or won't take me up on this, then in the 
th> name of simple politeness, he should stop the blind posts.  

Would you like to get a feed of t.p.a. from my system?  It'll be
FREE, of course, and won't cost you a penny apart from your long-
distance costs.   If you can't or won't take me up on this, then
in the name of logical consistency as well as simple politeness, 
you should stop trying to dictate net behavior.  

-- 
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: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:13:45 GMT

In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Aug27.152729.19321@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
>kb> It's true.  One of the wolves favorite tricks is to chase a 
>kb> single, but perfectly healthy deer onto a patch of ice where it 
>kb> becomes easy prey.  The wolves have better footing on ice due to 
>kb> five relatively sharp claws on each paw versus two relatively 
>kb> dull hoof tips on each leg of the deer.  The deer are pretty 
>kb> clumsy on ice, believe it or not.  They can't make sharp cuts 
>kb> since the hooves offer no "side bite" to dig in for better 
>kb> traction.  I learned this by watching National Geographic 
>kb> programs.  
>
>It's true that hooved mammals may be incapacitated, not only on 
>ice, but on crusted, windblown snow as well.  And it's also true 
>that wolves will often attempt to drive vulnerable deer onto such 
>terrain.  However, wolf-prey experts like Farley Mowat have pointed 
>out that healthy prey animals will typically stand their ground rather 
>than allow themselves to be driven into compromising positions.  
>
>It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
>stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
>courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
>human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
>confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
>in confrontations with humans?  
>

Because he may win in a confrontation with a wolf. He will most likely lose
to a hunter. This is probably learned behavior. In a park with no hunting, a
deer may walk right into your camp. They don't do that where I hunt. I'd be
glad to take you to both areas if you don't believe it. Different situations
call for different responses. This is true whether man is involved or not.
It might also be stupid to swim a raging river, or stand and face a forest 
fire, but animals do drown and die in fires. A deer is smart enough to
recognize a man as being dangerous in most instances. 
   I get the feeling from some of these postings that anti-hunters think the
hunter has a great advantage over his prey. Don't believe it. Although the 
stakes of the "game" are higher for the deer, man is but a part-time predator
and the deer is full-time prey. They have much more highly developed senses
and are on full alert most all of the time. I've never had a deer stand and 
face me in a wild situation. I've seen many more fresh tracks than I have deer.
I'm a pretty good hunter, but if I even get an opportunity for a shot at a
legal deer during a season's hunting, I've had a great success. Most people 
would starve if they had to depend on venison for sustenance. I guess that's 
why it's referred to as sport. It's sure not an efficient way for most people
to get a meal.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com


 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 23:27:36 GMT

	One point I forgot to mention to Russell:

I own 50 acres of land, 9 of which is pasture and cropland, 41 of which
is woodland and untouched save to keep trash and the like off of it.
Am I hypocritical for wishing to keep it woodland so I have good hunting
when I wish to do so?  I don't think so, and I don't think you believe it
is so either.

	BTW: the hunters usually out-number the deer on my place, but I'm
slowly taking care of that.  It's all from pure greed, you know.

<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: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:16:25 GMT

From article <1992Sep2.205525.7049@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, by smithm@furnace.ecn.purdue.edu (Matthew Jacob Smith):
ms> - Nature is a butcher, she only descriminates between the fit
ms>   and the unfit. Mercy is a human idea, one that nature does not know.
ms>   Matt Smith

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> The notion that "Nature" is a person who has some ideas but not others,
rl> is Matt Smith's idea.  There's no evidence to suggest that "Nature"
rl> is familiar with this notion.

From article <1992Sep3.121218.24115@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:
ry> On the other hand, almost everyone ELSE probably realizes that
ry> the personification of "Nature" in the disputed quote is merely
ry> a literary device and is not intended to imply that "Nature" is
ry> capable of cognition.

What purpose does it serve when a writer attempts to gain 
credibility for his own opinions by casting them into the minds 
and mouths of non-existent beings?  Consider the difference 
between the quoted text, and a more honest expression of the same 
thoughts: 

    "I am a butcher.  I only discriminate between the fit and the
     unfit.  Mercy is a human idea, but it's an idea that I do not
     know".   -- Matt Smith

Matt's entitled to his views, but when he pretends that they're the
product of the mind of "nature" or some make-shift god, I reserve
the right to point out the inherent misrepresentation.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 1 Sep 92 01:27:52 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.715219049@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:

>>>	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does ...
   
Ted Robinson writes:

>>Cut the "parse it again" crap. You wrote it in the present tense, now 
>>you're trying to add in the future. It's fine with me if you want to modify 
>>your original statement, but I'd respect you a lot more if you were up 
>>front about it.
  
Dan Sorenson writes:

> As for respect, when I have ever been anything but up front with
> what I think in this or any other newsgroup?  I reserve the right to
> modify my opinions as new evidence comes in, but there's no ulterior motive
> behind my posts.  I say what I think.  Not always in the best of terms,
> mind you, but always truthfully.   
 
Perhaps I misunderstood your use of "parse it again, Ted". I interpreted it 
as "read it again, Ted", implying that I had misread your original statement 
and had incorrectly assumed the present tense.  That is, it looked like an 
attempt to add new meaning to your statement, while trying to blame me for 
misunderstanding it. If so it would've been less than "up front". 

Now I see that my interpretation may be wrong, that in fact "parse it again, 
Ted", means "whoops, there's some more stuff I meant to write but forgot so 
let me try again, Ted", in which case I was reacting to a misinterpretation 
and I apologize.

 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 29 Aug 92 20:34:41 GMT
Organization: WP Group


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can you see a distinction between industrial polution and 
rl> hurricanes, or forest fires and nuclear holocaust?  Or, would you 
rl> say that all of these phenomena are "natural"?  

Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> Russell, I'm surprised.  This is not up to standards for you.  
ja> Surely you're not serious.  On the outside chance you are: Of 
ja> course not.  

rl> In what sense, then, do you consider human predation (using man-made
rl> tools) to be a "natural" activity?

From article <1992Aug28.154352.8537@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> If I may answer a question with a question: at what point in 
ja> history did man's predation become unnatural?  Is any tool 
ja> unacceptable?  Is a knife, spear, or bow ok, but a gun not?  Keep 
ja> in mind that chimps have been observed using sticks to extract 
ja> termites from a mound and (I think) even as weapons.  Should we 
ja> start a movement against such "unnatural" behavior by chimps?  

If your test of "naturalness" is determined by the longevity of 
the practice, how long will we need to wait before industrial 
pollution and nuclear holocaust become "natural" activities?  If 
another species, apart from mankind, had the capability of engaging 
in such activities, would their participation permit us to forego 
the waiting period as the test of "naturalness"?

ja> In all honesty, I consider predation by man to be natural in and 
ja> of itself and choice of weaponry a separate issue. 

It seems to me that you're using "naturalness" as a screen, of sorts,
to evade the issues.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: uad1214@dircon.co.uk (Peter Cox)
Subject: American Slaughterhouse Practices - Help Please!
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:17:45 GMT


One or two people may know that I'm currently writing the
new edition of "Why You Don't Need Meat".

I would very much like to hear from anyone who might be
able to provide me with some help concerning slaughterhouse
practices in the U.S. - not really from the hygienic point
of view, but from the humanitarian/ ethical.

If you've been eyewitness to anything less than humane, I'd
appreciate hearing from you.  Also, I'd appreciate knowing
what kind of regulations exist (federal/state) and how well
they're enforced.

Please e-mail.

Thanks.

-- 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                         Peter Cox

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:53:59 GMT

In article <BtH5u3.54r@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Your assumptions are unwarranted.  I'm sure that everyone 
rl> realizes that large scale fencing is possible.  I'm equally sure 
rl> that everyone also realizes that large scale fencing would be quite 
rl> expensive, especially for a non-profit organization.  Instead of 
rl> dishing out unfounded assumptions, why don't you do some homework 
rl> and let us know the total assets of the LACS organisation, the
rl> dimensions of the reserve, and how much you think it would cost
rl> to erect the sort of fencing that would be both humane and effective 
rl> in restraining deer.    There's no need to be nitpicky about the 
rl> precise costs of the fencing, BTW;  just round off your figures to
rl> the nearest million dollars.

From article <RIGG.92Aug25113821@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Okay, given that rounding, the fence would be free!  I just called
tr> Marc Beem at Beem Fencing.  He just fenced in a 960 acre resort that
tr> took 5 miles of 10-foot deer-proof fence.  The total cost was $75,000.

Would you mind describing the fence material that he used? 

tr> Given the fact that the LACS gave $115,000 in campaign contributions
tr> to forward their cause, they certainly had the resources to put in a
tr> fence.   

You're still making assumptions.   Do you know how much money it would 
have cost to fence the LACS property using materials that the LACS
membership would approve?   Do you regard political contributions as
a sure-sign than an organization has money to burn?   Has it occurred
to you that an organization such as LACS might have some profound reasons
for contributing to a campaign, even if the contribution might cause
deficits in other areas?

tr> IF a fence would have caused your self-regulating mechanism
tr> to be invoked, the LACS could have made a very powerful statement and
tr> prevented any "unnecessary" culling for around the same amount.

Perhaps.  The fact remains that you're not in a position to judge their
motives, nor is it reasonable to deduce the necessity of hunting from
the experience of LACS.

-- 
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: New meaning for Peta
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:24:37 GMT

In article <Bu0qIn.DJ1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Mark Pleis writes:
>mp> PETA
>mp> People for the eating of tasty animals.
>mp>
>mp> On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers
>mp> should make a trip to this (Myself Northeast
>mp> Vice-President)little event and help you people get your shit
>mp> straight
>mp>
>mp>
>mp> Beef Real food for REAL people
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a
>rl> high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?
>rl>
>rl> Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation
>rl> between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
>rl> diabetes?
>
>From article <1992Sep3.160238.9425@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (C
owboy):
>mp> No public health organization has said that eating meat is bad.
>
>Would you mind answering the questions I asked previously?
>
>--
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
>russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ


Don't hold your breath waiting for your answer from Cowboy.

I'm relatively certain that the American gluttony for beef and other meats
contributes to the citizenry's quantity of health problems.  I'll further go
on record to say that your diet (vegan?) is wonderfully healthy and contributes
to your high level of health and and well-being.  Will you answer a question?
Would the Chinese people who eat limited amounts of beef, pork, chicken,
and fish be healthier if they ate none of these substances?  Would the
sub-Saharan nomadic herding peoples be healthier if they eliminated milk
from their daily diet and the beef, goat, and mutton they eat on average
monthly?  How much healthier would Tim Rigg of Wisconsin be if he eliminated
the venison he consumes from his diet?

Do the studies you cite advocate zero meat consumption as the ideal?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 19:46:13 GMT

In article <BtsEDy.CzB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>From article <21643@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
>
>js> Is the deer "stupid" or "courageous" if stays put in a 
>js> confrontation with a wolf and dies anyways?  
>js> 
>js> The obvious answer to your question is that if the deer 
>js> stays put for a human it might get shot.  Of course, for any 
>js> number of reasons, it may not.  If the deer is shot at and 
>js> missed, perhaps it will learn something for next time.  If a 
>js> deer stays put for a wolf it may die, or it may not.  
>
>Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?

Of course not, Russell.

rl>If not, please
rl>explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
rl>being targeted and missed.

Easy. Deer react to almost anything that is not normal to them. The
sounds, motions, and smells that are common to them everyday are
normal. When you shoot at a deer and miss, several things happen. 
First, there is the act of the bullet passing very near it which
is accompanied by a small shock wave of sorts. Second, if the bullet
impacts the nearby ground, it kicks up dirt. Third, moments later the
sound of the rifle report reachs its ears. By now these events,
which are not normal, should trigger the deers' survival instinct
and cause it to flee. Now you may ask, "But how does that prepare
the deer for the next time it is shot at"?  This is easy too.     
Upon being shot at, the deer learn  that deer season is open.
At this point, many of the "quick-learners" change their feeding
habits, movement habits, and other traits. Many become nocturnal
and lay low during the day. Many seek refuge in the thickest 
places that they can find. But some are just unlucky and get
harvested anyway. So, for some deer, all it takes is one shot
and it is either dead or little bit wiser. 
 
Just to give you an example, last year I was hunting a large field
at my club. I watched 4 does and a buck step into the field at
a distance of about 300yds. I took aim at the buck when he was 
broadside and shot. The buck leaped into the air as the bullet
went low under his rib cage and kicked up a cloud of dirt about
10 yds behind him. Needless to say, he put it in high gear and
followed immediately by the four does headed for the tree line.   
 I can't say how many of these deer survived the season,
but here usually 25 percent of the deer population is harvested
each season. I think it would be safe to conjecture that 2 or
3 survived of those deer survived it, though. 



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

Keith

-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 |   GO BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:45:28 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
rl> of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.
rl> 
rl>    11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
rl>        that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
rl>        it supposed to be proved. 
rl>
rl> I'm going to save this quotation and repost it everytime you tell
rl> us that humans have rights because they're human.

From article <Bu0uxC.1I5@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Repetition does not equate to correctness.  If it did, "The 
cm> Protocols of the Elders of Zion" would be true...  you DON'T 
cm> believe it's true...  DO you?  

Do you agree with the editors of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy
that circular arguments are fallacious?

Instead of repetitiously telling us that humans have rights 
because they're human (ie a circular argument), why don't you 
explain why you think humans have rights?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:32:38
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:06:41 GMT

In article <Btwq37.Mwx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   Again, let's assume that the caloric intake of the deer 
   population (1N) in a given region amounts to 5,000 calories per 
   day/individual.  And let's assume that this figure provides 
   sufficient energy to meet the daily needs of the deer, plus 
   sufficient excess calories to permit the average individual to 
   build and maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the 
   caloric intake, and hence fatness, if the population were to 
   increase to 2N or 4N?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to 
   me that the average caloric intake per capita would decline as 
   the population steadily increases above 1N.  Do you agree with
   me that fatness would decline as the caloric surpluses steadily
   diminish? 

   If estrus/menses cycles cease to function when adipose tissue 
   falls below a certain point, say 17% body fat, please explain 
   how/why you think the population would continue to "explode"
   if/when the available calories/capita are insufficient to maintain 
   17% body fat.  

Could you elaborate?  What would the populations be for the next 5 or
10 years?  

I have never said the population would increase to infinity.  Rather,
it would initially increase quite substantially until the food supply
was severely damaged (ie. _everything_ below 6 feet would be gone) and
then starvation, disease, or a slightly worse than usual winter would
ravage the herd.  The population would drop but the the food supply
would take many years to recover.  The result would be a perpetually
diseased, sickly herd.


   One more point: ...

... that I'll address in another post with a more appropriate subject
heading... 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)