HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@serum.kodak.com [Rich Young (x37176)]
Subject: Re: SEA SHEPHERD; LITIGATION; CANADA
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 12:55:10 GMT

In article <Bs8Iz1.8sK@acsu.buffalo.edu> rms@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert M. Straubinger) writes:

>In article <9207291526.AA28569@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>>SEA SHEPHERD; LITIGATION; CANADA
>>SEA SHEPHERD LAWSUIT AGAINST CANADA COMES TO TRIAL

[...]

>Could somebody clarify what is the 'Seal Protection Act' of Canada,
>and why it's repeal would be a victory for people (I presume by context)
>who seek to protect animals?

   If I'm wrong about this, someone will undoubtedly correct me...in less
   than charitable terms, no doubt, but here's the way _I_ understand it:

	The SEA SHEPHERD is a boat belonging to (or at least operated by)
	the Fund for Animals, an AR group founded by Cleveland Amory, among
	others.  One of their activist actions involved the painting of
	harp seal pups with organic dye in order to make them worthless
	as fur-bearing creatures and thus impede the annual Canadian seal
	hunt.  The SEA SHEPHERD was used to carry the Fund for Animals
	painters close to the site.  This much I know to be true, because
	Cleveland Amory describes it all in his book "The Cat Who Came for
	Christmas", a thinly-veiled paean to the AR movenment disguised
	as a humorous treatise about a man adopting a cat that suckered
	me into spending money for it.

	Now comes the fuzzy part: Canadian law says that "non-participants"
	in the hunt are not allowed within 1/2 nautical mile of the hunt
	activity.  This may be the "Seal Protection Act" under which the
	SEA SHEPHERD was seized, and which is being challenged as uncons-
	titutuional since it prevents free citizens from travelling on
	public lands.

	Now, I'll be the first to admit that my conjecture regarding the
	connection of the SEA SHEPHERD to the Seal Protection Act may be
	in error, so save the AR flames for something worth burning...like
	Cleveland Amory's book.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Rich Young                             | Phone: (716) 253-7176
Eastman Kodak Company                  | FAX: (716) 253-7254
Clinical Products Division             | Internet: young@serum.kodak.com
100 Carlson Road                       |
Rochester, New York, USA   14653-9122  | These are MY opinions, not Kodak's!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:33:34 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
[snip]
>Mike Linan writes:

>DC2>	Hunting seems simply a matter of ...
>>
>> All this wonderful insight from one who has never engaged the sport of hunt-
>> ing.  Everyone should stop what they are doing and listen to this person of
>> such vast knowledge.  It must be obvious that he is gifted to be able to make
>> such commentary without ever actually "experiencing" what he is talking about.

>	Well, please tell me, am I wrong?  What am I missing, Mike?  Is it 
>really so much more complex than it sounds?  Please, enlighten me ...

What are you missing? Experience. That goes for anything, sex,
parachuting, hunting, ...  It's no good asking someone what it
feels like to them, you have to see what it feels like to you.

So the very BEST for you to appreciate what is involved is by trying it
for yourself. Asking someone to *describe* what it feels like -
especially using this appaling medium - must like having sex with a wet
paper bag, it just isn't anything like the real thing (or so I'm told
:-).

--JOnathan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Skill as defined by Caruso II
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:16:27 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <Brvzvy.JE5@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>[snip]
>>Mike Linan writes:
>
>>DC2>	Hunting seems simply a matter of ...
>>>
>>> All this wonderful insight from one who has never engaged the sport of hunt-
>>> ing.  Everyone should stop what they are doing and listen to this person of
>>> such vast knowledge.  It must be obvious that he is gifted to be able to make
>>> such commentary without ever actually "experiencing" what he is talking about.
>
>>	Well, please tell me, am I wrong?  What am I missing, Mike?  Is it 
>>really so much more complex than it sounds?  Please, enlighten me ...
>
>What are you missing? Experience. That goes for anything, sex,
>parachuting, hunting, ...  It's no good asking someone what it
>feels like to them, you have to see what it feels like to you.
>
>So the very BEST for you to appreciate what is involved is by trying it
>for yourself. Asking someone to *describe* what it feels like -
>especially using this appaling medium - must like having sex with a wet
>paper bag, it just isn't anything like the real thing (or so I'm told
>:-).
>
>--JOnathan

This is all very well, but surely you aren't saying that we can't have
a view of - or even form educated opinions about - activities we haven't
personally participated in?

Try going over to soc.history and saying something like "all this condemnation
of the Holocaust, from people that have never killed themselves a Jew/gay/commie/
gypsy in there lives!" ....

(Oh damn, I mentioned the Nazis. Let me wearily add that I am not comparing
hunters with nazis, I am merely pointing out that we all have lots of opinions
about activities in which we have not personally participated, and those
opinions are not thereby worthless.)

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 25 Jul 92 20:31:40 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.132306.6649@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>
>But it seems so blindingly obvious to me that death from a rifle or a bow 
>is orders of magnitude better than starvation,

Agreed. But is that necessarily the choice? Hunters that post here tend
to suggest that every single animal they they kill would have otherwise
starved to death in the snow that following winter (I exaggerate a bit),
but is that *really* so? Some populations of some species in some areas
at some times - sure. But just how generally is it true? I realise that
these are very compilicated questions of ecology, population dynamics,
etc, and we are not going to be able to find a definitive answer here.
Referring me to article in "Petersen's Hunting" is probably not going to
convince me. I guess it is this: just about everybody is busy wrapping
themselves in the environmental flag these days - every bit of junk mail
has "printed on recycyled paper" on it. And guess what, the hunters are
now announcing that their chosen activity is really ultra-environmental,
too. I don't think that you are actively being dishonest about this - most
of the hunters here seem to be very sincere - but I wonder if you aren't
a bit too quick to believe that the activity which you happen to enjoy
just also happens to be such a great thing for the environment/planet/
animals? We'd all like to think that that which we happen to want to do
is actually good in and of itself, and are seldom highly critical of arguments
that seem to support that belief.

 death by natural 
>predation. 

Maybe, maybe not. In any case the animals would live longer, which might
be of some worth and value to them.

>           Dying of old age is a luxury we've attained by re-modelling our 
>planet, among other things.  Animals in the wild rarely die of old age.  
>Their death is long, lingering and painful in the normal course of events 
>and I can't help but feel that death at the hands of a hunter is far far 
>quicker and cleaner than much of anything else.  Thus, when I examine the 
>AR cause, despite their claims of wanting less pain and sufferring for 
>animals, I see banning hunting as advocating more pain and suffering, not 
>less. 

Life in the wild is really so awful that the animals are better off dead?
Death in the wild is doubtless pretty unpleasant when it comes - but to
the extent that we are actually doing the individual animal a kindness by
going out and killing it? 

>       I would feel this way even if I didn't hunt.  I see it, not as a 
>matter of opinion, but as an acknowledgement of the facts of life.  Because 
>of this viewpoint, I feel very frustrated when someone tries to replace a 
>quick, relatively painless death with a long, lingering one.  I hate to see 
>anything suffer.  I don't mind watching it die but damnit I hate to see it 
>suffer.

Good. I am glad you feel that way. I hope all hunters do, too.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: HABITAT; WETLANDS; EUROPEAN FORESTS
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: wheeler@SUPER.ORG's message of 31 Jul 92 16:51:53 GMT

In article <9207311651.AA10698@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:

	* The Power Authority of New York and three other public
   utilities have agreed to limit use of Hudson River water during the
   spring and summer spawning seasons of striped bass and shad. The
   agreement ended a lawsuit filed by the Natl. Resources Defense
   Council, Scenic Hudson, and the Hudson River Fishermen's Assn.

What?  An AR publication noting one of many efforts of sportmen to
protect habitat?  I'm amazed the propoganda lords let it slip by.  At
least they did list the obvious sportmen's group last (although I
wonder about the charter of the Natl. Resources Defense Council).

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:28:30 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <-j1x-=q@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul27.113014.6677@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul24.173326.1658@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>
>[stuff deleted]
>>
>>John Robinson wrote:
>>>As has been pointed out, the hunter is far from judge and jury.  The judges 
>>>and jurors are in the F&G depts.  They decide.  They determine seasons, bag 
>>>limits and so forth.  We carry out their decisions.
>>
>>No.  The F&G departments make the rules.  The individual hunters are the
>>judges and jurors who make the life and death decisions that affect the
>>individual animals.
>
>Sorry, guys, but I still don't buy this.  The legislators don't tell
>the cops that they can arrest 65,783 rapists, and only *one* per man,
>and that all the rest go free.  That's what the game departments do,
>and that's why they are *judge* and *jury*, as well as legislators.
>Hunters are still only the executioner.  Once one of us drops a buck,
>we do not "judge" whether or not the other bucks we see are "guilty."
>The game department has already done that.  And they go free.
>
>

I'm not sure how far it is worth pushing this analogy, but anyway ...

As a matter of political reality, does the Dept of F & G really pay
no heed at all to the fact that hunters want to go hunting? 

Is it really not part if their charter to keep the hunting community
at least somewhat happy? 

The "F&G = judiciary, hunters = executioners" analogy would seem to
require that the F&G makes its decisions with no thought at all of
providing hunters with opportunities to persue their sport. 

Realistically, how are the quotas arrived at? Is it really all done
by wildlife biologists with no thought at all to keeping the voting
hunter happy? I freely admit that I don't know the answer to this,
but I strongly suspect that the answer is "Not entirely, no..."

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunters legitimate concern
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:19:23 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 24 Jul 92 01:06:33 GMT

In article <BrvCEz.3v5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

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

What fraction of the folks in DU are hunters?  I would suspect it is
well over 75%. Given that, it seems quite reasonable to consider the
efforts of DU as a sign of hunters goodwill.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: PETA Action Line
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:15:19 GMT



>From the PETA Action Line (301)770-8980 - 6/16/92:
 
The plight of marine mammals captured in the United States and exported to
foreign countries is one of terror, pain, death, and the unknown! Besides
death resulting from capture and the stress of captivity, a large number of
dolphin have needlessly died from starvation, suffocation, drowning, blood
loss, fractured skulls, and poisoning. The National Marine Fisheries Service
has been characterized as permissively and consistently allowing for a lack
of accountability for animals in the United States, therefore it comes as no
surprise that foreign facilities have shown an extreme lack of
accountability for the animals purportedly under regulation of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.  Congressman Michael Bilirakis of Florida is
sponsoring a Marine Mammal No Capture/No Export Bill in the United States
Congress.  Information as to where your representatives stands regarding
this Bill and whether or not he/she will be a co-sponsor to the Bill can be
obtained by contacting their offices at (202)224-3121.
 
                     + + + + + + + + + +
 
The Heifer Project International has produced what they call the most
important gift catalog in the world.  In the catalog are an assortment of
farm animals that can be ordered and then shipped anywhere in the world.
Please call and write to Heifer Project International and let them know that
they should try promoting a compassionate alternative that does not wreak
havoc upon the environment, our health and the animals. Call 1-800-422-0474
and write to:
 
HPI
Christmas Catalog
P.O. Box 808
Little Rock, Arkansas  72203
 
                     + + + + + + + + + +
 
You tell 'em!  The following numbers are toll free phone numbers for various
fur shops, trapping suppliers, farm suppliers and lab animal suppliers,
etc...  Each week new numbers will be added, collect them all and trade them
with your friends!  All numbers begin with 1-800:
 
D.P. Trap Co. 828-7077               Fur Vault ASK-4FUR
Snare Shop 373-8097                  Tendler Furs 347-7040
 
Amitech/Dominican Labs 752-4334      United Vaccines 283-MINK
Harvard Apparatus 272-2775           MECO Inc. 245-2309
 
Outdoorsman Audio 366-HUNT           Llamma Olympics 343-5262
(some profits to PPF)
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:36:51 GMT

In article <dwxx8vc@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

[...]

>The key word is individual.  Hunters help the population, not the
>individual that is taken.  Until you AR folk can understand where we
>are coming from in thinking about "all the *other* individuals," our
>arguments shall fall on deaf ears.  Sacrifice by the individual for
>the good of the many.  That's a concept that comes easy for me, but
>apparently others don't like it.  The word "selfless" does not come to
>mind when thinking about such people.  They are rarely blood donors
>(eww -- those needles *hurt*). :-(

John, what are you trying to say here?  That AR supporters and
sympathizers are not blood donors?  Where do you guys get some 
of these crazy ideas?

---
Robert Black (5 gallon donor)
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: Soft Headed Thinking Disgusts Me	
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 01:31:55 GMT

From article <1992Jul30.201452.22580@meaddata.com>, by georged@meaddata.com (George Dibos):
gd> Excuse me, NewsGroup, but has the absurdity of your passion (is that
gd> the right word?) for Life ever occurred to you?
gd> 
gd> Life--ALL life--by definition, MUST consume other life to exist.
gd> 
gd> Period.
gd> 
gd> I know, all PETA members eat sand, right?

I'm a PETA member, but I don't eat sand.

gd> No?  Then please defend the rationalization that killing less complex
gd> life-forms (vegetables) to sustain yourselves is more justifiable than
gd> killing higher life forms.
gd> 
gd> I'm waiting...

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that George Dibos 
is a primitive lifeform with the thinking and feeling capacity of a 
cabbage.  Would life still be meaningful to him in any way?  Would 
he feel pain?  Would he experience emotions like joy and fear?  
Would he participate in any meaningful relationships with other, 
equally mindless, beings?  

If not, then how could we deprive him in any meaningful way by
taking his life?

gd> It simply makes you feel less guilty about it.
gd> 
gd> Again, period.

I suspect you've made the rather silly assumption that it's 
killing-per-se that AR activists oppose.  In truth, however,
what we respect is not the killing of life-per-se, but the
deprivation and mistreatment of meaningful life.

gd> Or are you willing to go on the record as stating that YOU don't 
gd> think less complex life-forms are less "valuable" and deserving 
gd> of life than the more-complex life forms are???  

If George the Thinking/Feeling Cabbage truly existed, I'd be disinclined
to consume him for dinner.   On the other hand, if cabbages don't
experience life in any meaningful way, I fail to see how we could
deprive them in any way by consuming them or treating them in any
manner that we see fit.

gd> Hypocrites!

Do you have any evidence to show that cabbages experience thoughts and 
feelings?

-- 
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: CIRCUS NEWS
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:24:33 GMT


 
CIRCUS NEWS:
 
     * The USDA has fined Oscarian Brothers Circus owner Manuel
Ramos $5,000, $3,500 of it suspended, for a variety of animal care
violations that came to light after the skinned corpses of a lion,
two panthers, and either a leopard or a jaguar were found in a
shallow pit at the North Georgia Fairgrounds in Marietta, Ga., in
April 1989.  Ramos' circus, which performs for Shriners groups, had
just left town.  The big cats were apparently killed by overdoses
of worming medicine.
 
     * The Price Chopper grocery chain recently refused to sponsor
a Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey Circus visit to Albany, N.Y.,
"despite a rather nasty threat from circus management that the
sponsorship would be given to Price Chopper's main competitor,"
reports Albany veterinarian Holly Cheever.
 
     * The USDA has closed a probe into the alleged beating of a
Great American Circus elephant with a metal shovel in Charlotte,
Vermont, last summer, "due to insufficient information," according
to spokesperson Kendra Pratt.  It was unclear whether this was the
same elephant who ran amok Feb. 2 in Palm Bay, Fla., and was killed
by police. (See Spectacles, April 1992.)
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
  
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: ruthless@panix.com (Ruth Ditucci)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: the hungry homeless are eating the strays (believe it or not).
Keywords: hungry, food for the needy, missing dogs and cats
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:08:17 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

One of the most startling and most hushed new developments which has
grown out of our problem with the homeless in New York City, is their
continued need for protein which many are now obtaining by eating
the strays.  It's sad, it's heartbreaking, but it's true.

This is not news to the NYC Police Dept., or the social service agencies
who work with the homeless on a day to day basis.  

	Oh, yes, and pidgeon- they say, makes a very hearty stew.


Do not flame me.  I didn't cause this- I merely witnessed it.  P.S.  the number
of homeless being treated for ingestion of rat poison (formerly eaten by
whatever animal they ate) has gone up dramatically as well.
From: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: jsemrad@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <1992Jul29.155806.28246@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
|> 
|> The ethical issue of shooting at animals 1200 yards away was brought up
|> by hunters, and initially by one who used to be a prolific poster to
|> t.p.a.  My point had nothing to do with physics.  I mentioned this
|> because some hunters defend practices like this which are not necessary
|> and which can increase the chances of inflicting a crippling non-fatal
|> injury.
|> 
|> So despite the lofty proclamations and eloquent language that we often
|> hear in t.p.a. from hunters about their concern for animals, the words
|> of hunters in other forums would seem to belie the selective claims made
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^ - rec.hunting I presume?
|> in t.p.a. within earshot of AR people. 

Robert, did you follow the thread in rec.hunting regarding such long shots?
If you had you would have been aware that the majority of people who commented
condemned the practice.  Even the few that supported it pretty much agreed
that it was reasonable only under ideal conditions, with very good equipment,
and by extremely talented shooters.  I think everyone agreed that the
average deer hunter has no business attempting such shots.  Many people
brought up the problems that plague shooting game at such distances.

Nobody cares if you read rec.hunting, as the net is for all.  However if you
are going to talk about what you found there, at least do it accurately.
Also, realize that rec.hunting is a group aimed at hunters (hence the name)
so certain topics may be discussed in a more graphic or technical fashion
than they might be here or in other groups not specifically related to hunters.

Joe

My opinions are my own, bla, bla, bla...
-- 
================================================================
= C. Joseph Semrad                  =   Phone: 612-553-4758    =
= EMPOWER Development               =   FAX:   612-553-4018    =
= Empros Systems International      =   jsemrad@ems.cdc.com    =
================================================================
=      1991 Minnesota Twins, Baseball's World Champions!       =
=           So, Jack it was the money, wasn't it?              =
================================================================