HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 13:58:40 GMT

altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

[...]

>Here is another statement of fact.  Donald Hebb,
>a famous psychologist, actually had students attempt to get to
>know some primates at Yerks laboratories.  One group simply 
>adopted your garden variety "anthropomorphic" characterizations
>of the chimps, the other group adopted the then scientifically
>respectable observational language of strict behavourism.  Guess
>which group better PREDICTED chimp behaviour?  Well, it turns out
>that our anthropomorphising students far out-performed our more
>neutral, de-anthropomorphized observational language-bound students.
>
>So it is not just AR folk, but respectable zoologist and ethologists
>who have recognized that a circumspect anthropomorphism tempered with
>naturalism is the best means for understanding animal behaviour.
>In fact, I believe that you have done this repeatedly in your own 
>discussions about deer.  Have you not use the mentalist language
>of "fear", "weariness", "fatique", etc. when describing animal
>behaviour?.

[...remainder of article deleted...]

	I don't really want to become deeply involved in this argument,
	but there are two points upon which I would like to make an
	observation:

	   1. Chimps share more than 99% of their genetic material with
		humans and are our closest evolutionary relatives, so it
		shouldn't be too surprising that anthropomorphic
		characterizations proved more accurate.  A similar study
		with deer would be FAR more indicative.

	   2. The difference between "anthropomorphizing" and the use of
		anthropocentric language for convenience in description of
		phenomena is not insignificant.

-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are MY opinions, don't blame them on my employer.

Don't get angry, get accurate information.
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:17:42 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BMIHoH.CCA@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.144420.4916@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <BMAnMx.5CD@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>>>We've 
>>>>established, I think, from the above numbers that modern sport hunting 
>>>>promotes sustainable, stable populations.
>>> 
>>> 	We have?  15-40 million, <500 thousand and 12-20 million are
>>> the only "above numbers" I see that you could possibly be referring
>>> to.  The downward trend in western US in mule deer was not stable,
>>> nor apparently was the peak population of mule deer in the early
>>> 1960's "sustainable".
>>
>>The drop to < 500 K was *NOT* due to sport hunting.  It was due to *MARKET* 
>>hunting.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> 	I've never said they were teh same thing.  You referred to the
> "above numbers" in reference to sport hunting.  The *only* "above
> numbers" were those I've quoted above.
> 

I referred to them because it is necesary to understand them in order to 
understand the origins of sport hunting in North America.

-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Rights. Was: Re: Children, Children
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:31:59 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Apr3.122228.11776@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org, Christopher
Morton writes:
>
>If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that your rights EXIST, much
>less are being violated, you don't have any.
>

I think this question has been asked already, but I've yet to read where
you answer it, so let me ask you again:

    Severely brain-damaged children (or brain-deficient, as in the case of 
    anancephalic children) are INCAPABLE of knowing that their rights EXIST,
    much less of knowing if their rights are being violated, so does this
    mean they don't have any rights?

    Would it be ethical to use them in medical experiments?

    Would it be ethical to drop them head first into boiling water?

    Would it be ethical (note, I didn't say legal) to eat them?


If your answer to any of these questions is "No," then why?  Such persons fail
to meet the criteria you assert above as necessary for the granting of rights.

Chris, I've been following this debate, and it seems to me that you
often fail to answer direct questions when your answer to those questions
would refute some previous assertion of yours.  

Please don't skirt this one.

-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson |   "While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered 
jjohnson@convex.com |    beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on 
                    |    this earth?" 		--George Bernard Shaw
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 6 Apr 92 07:20:53 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr3.174151.9420@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.100906.11159@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>>>>That  doesn't  sound  particularly nice to me. This implies that hunters do
>>>>>>far  more  damage  than  just  kill  a  few  deer, they actually change the
>>>>>>living habits of the animal.
>>>>> 
>>>> So, therefore you agree we are not only killing the occasional deer but we are
>>>> actually altering their lifestyles en masse.
>>>I think it is fair to say that their lifestyle is temporarily disrupted 
>>>during hunting season yes.  They adjust however.
>>
>>People living in Beirut have learned to adjust a well, does that make it ok?
>
>You live in a city, and have altered your lifestyle so that taxi cabs
>don't run over you. Is that bad?
>
I live in a town. The taxis follow a set of rules (e.g. drive on the road).
Snipers do not.

>Besides, here you are decrying the lifestyle changes that the poor deer
>while at the same time espousing modifying the lifestyles of millions
>of human animals. I suppose its ok to affect a lifestyle that you simply
>don't like, and try to preserve one that you think is ok. Ins't that
>just a bit duplicitous?
>

Can you please show me *where* I espoused modifying the lifestyles of
millions of human animals?



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:57:36 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <t77tvjj@rpi.edu> schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Apr1.075655.14842@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>
>>If  wolves  were  capable of growing crops and generally not having to rely
>>on hunting animals then cruelty would be the issue.
>>
>>A  wolf  hunts  to  survive,  but  humans  can  easily  survive without any
>>hunting  or  consumption of any animal products, hence the word cruelty can
>>be  used.  If  we  *needed*  to  hunt  to  survive  then I would agree that
>>cruelty would not be such an issue.
>>
>I'd deny "easily."

Why?

>Nor is simple survival enough.

What do you mean by this?

>I still believe that good health requires meat.

Since all the available data proves you wrong I'm not sure why you think this.

>And chickens raised
>in a factory farm "survive" well enough until the powers that be
>decide it is their time, though not under pleasant conditions.  
>
That is not the issue here.



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: lycaon@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Gerald Hough)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Wolves vs Men
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:53:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
	The deer in the wild are conditioned to flee moving objects, and by

--Jerry.

_____________________________________________________________________
| Gerald E. Hough II		|Collects:KaTeBushSistersOfMErcyCure|
| Wolf Park researcher		|ClannadKitaroNikKershawDuaneEddyELO|
| Battle Ground, IN		|Likes:RushTheWomblesDuaneEddyChurch|
|>>Insanity is time-consuming<< |UltimateSexRenNStimpyWolvesNYC-n-LA|
=====================================================================
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Boiling lobsters
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:32:11 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Apr3.171726.17215@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
> In article <1992Apr1.102800.4696@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <1992Mar30.155121.23859@clpd.kodak.com>, black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>> In article <1992Mar25.104316.4525@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>> 
>>> [... text deleted ...]
> 
>>>>Frankly the impact of torturing lobsters for any reason what so ever is 
>>>>relatively minor when compared with other problems.  Consequently it is 
>>>>considered to be less important.
[...text deleted...]
> 
> Not necessarily.  They're probably quite close.  I have not said that the
> quick painless killing of an animal for food is cruel.
> 
> What I was reacting to was your expressed indifference to the "impact of 
> torturing lobsters for any reason what so ever" on your grounds that it was
> "relatively minor when compared with other problems".

I stand by that.  That doesn't mean that I condone or encourage such 
behavior, simply that given the choice, where resources are scarce, I would 
rather see people prosecuted and put in jail for things like murder, theft, 
spousal abuse etc rather than torturing lobsters.

> 
> Without quibbling over whether lobsters suffer or die immediately, I find 
> that these types of statements leap out at me, because so often they assume 
> a conflict where there is actually not one.  For example how would refraining 
> from "torturing a lobster" (your words, remember) prevent you from addressing 
> other problems?  It seems that in this case, you could avoid causing the
> "minor problem" and at the same time continue your efforts to solve larger 
> problems.  No conflict, whatsoever!

Its not a question of refraining from such activity.  It is a question of 
tying up societies resources with such lobster offenders rather than what I 
consider to be more serious offenders.

> 
> 
> RB (black@serum.kodak.com)
> These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:35:10 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
>People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
>from the PROponent.
>-- 
>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
>robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
>DOD #0069

Leave your PROpoganda out of here.


-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 9 Apr 92 05:00:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: wpg.1992Apr9.050035.2722
Organization: WP Group

In article <10zt2!d@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> And just who would you get to produce the definitive answers to those
>> questions?  I suspect they will all be generated from common "hunting
>> lore", not from established principles of cervine ecology or facts
>> of deer anatomy and physiology.  Much of what hunters know about deer
>> is correct.  However, very little of it is ever verified in factual
>> studies.  Much is correct, but I'm sure some is incorrect, and I wouldn't
>> be at all surprised if some of it were baldface, self-serving lies, or
>> at least started out that way, even though it is commonly believed now.

From article <1992Apr8.144308.4894@ac.dal.ca>, by robinson@ac.dal.ca:
> Some lore may well have begun as 'baldface, self-serving lies'.  The 
> difficulty with this is that it is quite easy to put a 'twist' on 
> perception and view a simple misunderstanding in a sinister light.  Given 
> that hunting has produced a large and by all accounts healthy deer herd 
> where there was before only a decimated reminant...

Decimated by what?  

> and that hunters have 
> participated actively in this, I think it is more reasonable to assume the 
> former rather than the latter.
> 
> Indeed, in closely examining pro-gun and pro-hunting arguments and anti-gun 
> and anti-hunting arguments, I have to personally say that I've seen far 
> more self-serving lies in the latter than in the former.

Is there some logical reason why you've lumped pro-gun and 
pro-hunting arguments in one group and anti-gun and anti-hunting 
arguments in another?    Are pro-gun and pro-hunting arguments
philosophically synonomous?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:31:16 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <RIGG.92Apr2173643@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
> In article <altar.702251287@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
[...stuff removed...]

>    > Third, an important number is missing namely
>    > the approximate post winter population.
> 
>    You have the figures in front of you.  The HUNT OCCURRED DURING
>    DECEMBER.  Sorry if I forgot to mention that fact.
> 
> The cumulative drain and death from starvation is hardly likely to be
> evident before the winter really gets started.  Postwinter
> populationsare just that:  _after_ winter. December is _not_ after
> winter.

Exactly.  There is only one measure made per year.  This gives no 
indication of the number of starvations/number of fawns.

> 
>    Again, the post-hunt figures are for late December.  If by "late winter"
>    you mean March, then no doubt the hunting pressures and stress on
>    the deer during December caused the deer to lose crucial fat
>    reserves.  
> 
> This is rediculous. How does a 9 day deer season which just moves the
> deer around a bit more or, more likely, makes them bed down tighter,
> cause any significant reductions in body fat?

Fer sure.  Wish I could lose significant body fat in nine days.  Anyone 
want to hunt me for 10 days? :-)

> 
>    Now, what relevance would such March figures have
>    except to make the case even stronger that deer fecundity rates
>    will attempt to compensate for the winter kill by hunters
>    directly, or indirectly via depleting their fat reserves.
> 
> A comparison of pre and post winter numbers would show how many deer
> died during the winter.  I suspect these numbers would show that
> far fewer died of starvation after hunting.

If not, I'm sure someone somewhere can find some numbers that do indicate 
that. :-)

> 
> tim
> --
>     ...  Then they came for me,
> 	   and by that time there was no one
> 	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Speciesism and vegetarianism
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 06:24:35 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.154723.21929@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>In human society, rape is a power play, a violent crime that does not
>usually relate to the desire to reproduce.  "Mating habits" of untamed
>animals (rape, in some cases), may or may not be considered analogous
>to human rape.  Do other animals realize that offspring results from
>mating?  The typical answer would be no, but I am not prepared to
>assume this in all cases.  This reminds me of one aspect of the book,
>Clan of the Cave Bear, that I found very hard to believe, that the
>people did not realize that intercourse leads to pregnancy.
>
Actually, the records are fairly clear that this was not realized 
until the dawn of the Greek civilization.  So I'd say it is almost
definite that most animals can't make the connection between mating
and babies.  I still wouldn't be sure in all cases, but it is a safe
assumption, IMO.  The exceptions could be hamsters, since gestation
is so fast, or kangaroos, which seem able to control gestation
based on available resources.  Even those would be doubtful, though.
  
E.S.
From: pinky@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Burbank)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:34:13 GMT

robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>Interesting you feel this way.  When I wrote a letter to the DNR here 
>complaining about the ban on Sunday hunting, I was haughtily told that only 
>about 10-15 percent of the population hunts and that the other 85-90% wants 
>one day a week in which they can go in the woods would fear of being shot 
>(this is almost an exact quote).  Now, this sounds really plausible on the 
>surface, but remember they are referring to hunters by *population* and the 
>population includes *all* individuals.  Most of the hunters I know are 
>husbands and fathers.  So it would be more appropriate to assess the 
>situation on the basis of the number of *households* that are involved in 
>hunting.  Assuming four people / household (lots of folks here have more 
>than two kids, but lets assume just two for argument's sake) and this 
>10-15% jumps to 40-45% of households that are involved in hunting.  The 
>point of this is that the DNR here is *actively* trying to downplay the 
>importance of hunters.  Far from pandering to hunters, we are treated as a 
>barely tolerated minority by the DNR when the truth is far far different.

>
I am interested how you feel like you are being picked on by DNR becouse
you have to give the hills up 1 day out of a 7 day week.  very interesting.
seems to me that if DNR was really going to split the time in the hills
fairly then hunters would only get 3 or 4 days a week not 6.  hummmmmm.--
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Date: 8 Apr 92 14:06:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: osnome.RIGG.92Apr8090626
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au's message of 9 Apr 92 06:21:53 GMT

In article <4625@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) writes:
   About a week ago this was posted to rec.hunting:
   [Woodpecker post deleted]

What is your point?

The same woodpecker post was posted to some other groups
(misc.consumers.house and/or misc.rural). Nearly identical responses
were posted there.

tim rigg (moderator of rec.hunting)
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Putting People First (PPF)
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:53:57 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <RIGG.92Apr10153736@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.123510.29390@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>   In article <1992Apr8.143029.4893@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>   >For those interested, there is an article on an organization called Putting 
>   >People First in talk.politics.guns.  It is part of a series of postings 
>   >from the PROponent.
>
>   Leave your PROpoganda out of here.
>
>But AR propoganda is okay??
>
>What exactly is this group for if the PRO information is not allowed?
>
>tim

I agree with you Tim (not often does this happen).  I do not, however, think
the USENET is a place for groups to be posting information where sending in
$15 membership dues is encouraged.  Imagine the bandwidth if all the PAC's 
and non-profit groups post looking for a few bucks.   :-)     

Rob U, completely repulsed by the PPF, but will let them speak
--
-  Rob Unglenieks           |   "Half of us are dumb,                  -
-  unglenie@ecn.purdue.edu  |    the other half are just stupid."      -
-  (too busy grad student)  |                            - Rob U       -
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:33:03 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.144103.4831@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <=_xt5n-@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> In article <rcoppINN9fg@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr1.015813.12388@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>From article <r7gvqINNhsv@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
>[...stuff removed...]
>
>> It isn't obvious, and there may not even be any such effects yet.  _Yet_
>> In fact, before all the hunters started saying deer were forced to be
>> nocturnal, I wasn't aware of any species-wide deleterious effects of
>> hunting.  In any case, the fact that it may be harmful to deer warrants
>> some investigation, and changes to hunting practice if it proves to
>> actually be so.
>
>If *you* were a hunter you would have realized that deer are predominantly 
>nocturnal as it is.

	Well, you're a hunter but you are apparently unaware that deer
(at least white-tails and I think mule deer; what species are you
talking about?) are NOT "predominantly nocturnal" at least as
evidenced by activity, rather during winter months their activity
peaks before sunset, during other months activity may peak at about
sunset with significant activity preceding and after sunset, in
addition to peaks in activity around sunrise.

>The become somewhat more so during hunting season.

	The implication being that the deer which become "almost
totally nocturnal" do so because of hunting?  Reference, please.
Actually I'd like a reference for deer being "predominantly nocturnal"
as well.  By "predominantly nocturnal" I assume that you mean that
(nocturnal activity)/(diurnal activity) > 1.0 for deer.  Is that what
you are saying?

-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals