HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:51:55 GMT

rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:


>       Franky, I must admit to some puzzlement why you might be 
>   so interest in debating with us AR folk.  Maybe it is just
>   to pride yourself on resisting/rebuffing our best arguments.
>   Heck, you can only bring a horse to water, you can never 
>   force a drinking of even the more informed view and progressive
>   outlook.

>I think we could (and in fact _have_) debate which is the "more
>informed view".   This comment strikes me as a very cheap shot.

I didn't state what the "more informed view" was, did I?  I 
simply made a general observation that even if you have the
more informed and progressive view, you still can't compell
people to accept it.  There is freedom of belief, even
freedom to believe against one's better rationality in order
to justify current habits and practices.

That you should presume that it might well beu
the AR position, well, that might well bet
revealing of your prereflective but supressed
true understandings of the issue.  Now, this, Tim, is either
good insight or a properly a "cheap shot" :-)



>   [deleted]  Given some of the almost livid hostility and
>   contempt that is sometimes expressed towards us AR folk,
>   I can't help wondering where this comes from? ...

>The hostility and hatred is hardly onesided.  You certainly don't
>believe that all the AR folks are calm rational folks who never
>partake in a bit of flamethrowing, do you?

I've been called unprovoked "so ignorant that it is ugly",
a "fascist", a "commie", etc.  Yes, feelings run high
on both sides, but on balance it seems to me that 
the AR folk have been more civil and fair in their
exchanges.  Yes, I will exhange tic for tac, but I've
never called anyone "ignorant" or "stupid", but I will
call addleheaded a point of view (not a person) that I 
think is simply wrong.  Anyway, we need a third, disinterested
party to do an impartial review if we are to settle this
one with some objectivity.

                                  ted

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:33:52 GMT

young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176)) writes:

>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.

It works not just with chimps.  The ethologist were initially 
excoriated for their "liberal" use of anthropormorphic terms.
Darwin was even more liberal, if not too liberal.  His
contemporary, George Romanes ("MENTAL EVOLUTION IN ANIMALS) went
too far and discredited this epistemological tool.
AR folk have never gone to the extremes of Romanes' anthropomorphism,
or even Charles Darwin's, for that matter

An anthropomorphism tempered by naturalism, has become the dominate model.
See ethologist, Donald Griffin's very readable but scholary works,
 ANIMAL THINKING, 1984 and THE QUESTION OF ANIMAL AWARENESS, 1981.
,
                                        ted




>	   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: kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Why Hunters Quit
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:30:43 GMT
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service




Sorry Ted, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions on the dangers
to the future existence of hunting being a result of it not being
interesting.  I suspect that if you posed many of those questions,
rewritten according to activity, that you would get the same trend in
answers for any sport or activity.  How many people have tennis rackets,
golf clubs, running shoes, ski equipment, etc., sitting in a closet gathering
dust?  The difference in hunting is that you must pay each year for the
privilege of hunting so it is easy to see when there is a decline.  By 
the way, there is not decline in licensure sales in NC...maybe it has
to do with the availability of hunting land in NC vs New Jersey.

I am sure that a lot of people start hunting like you would start any
activity...it sounds interesting and fun.  Once people start, however,
they find that hunting, like any sport, takes a lot of time and dedication
both during the hunting season and during off-season (scouting lands,
learning about the habits of game animals, practicing your 
marksmanship, etc.).  The sport is not as simple as some people make it
out to be.

Speaking from personal experience (and let me point out that I hunt, have
hunted since I was 10, and am teaching my sons to hunt so they can make
the choice for themselves as whether or not to continue) I would say that
people quit because they don't have the time to commit to the sport,
it is difficult to find hunting land due to development or other 
restrictions, or because of people who take up the sport without taking
up the responsibility for the sport.  An ethical hunter learns all about
the sport, the rules, and the game he is pursuing....he is not the
"slob hunter" that so many AR people try to picture him as.

As a last thought I will just state that if the hunter is ever stopped
from his sport, wildlife, at least here in the US, will be more
threatened than ever.  

Keith
From: andrewt@cluster.cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Date: 11 Apr 92 05:39:23 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Science, Uni of Sydney, Australia

In article <...>, rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
> What is your point?

Let me be clearer, you as moderator of rec.hunting post, with out comment,
a request for information on how to illegally trap a protected, maybe even
threatened species. You subsequently post, also with comment, a reply
giving details of how to kill the protected species without being caught.

Now I checked with a lawyer friend, *your* actions would be illegal here
(aiding and abetting a crime) but I don't know about the US. Regardless,
your actions make it clear your attitude to the laws regulating hunting.
Your lack of concern as to the species involved makes it clear why
threatened species still get shot.

Having spent some time picking up dead and injured protected (and threatened)
species after duck hunters I knew that some hunters ignored the law.
What surprised me was that not only the moderator but also apparently none
of the readers of rec.hunting thought the illegality worthy of comment.

As to the comment by liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (jerry) that moral discussion
is not allowed in rec.hunting. This clearly a legal/ethical matter.
Discussion of both is allowed in rec.hunting.

Andrew Taylor
From: unglenie@author.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Rights or Humane treatment?
Date: 7 Apr 92 06:42:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: noose.1992Apr7.064213.1727
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr6.030906.17838@zip.eecs.umich.edu> mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:
>mhollowa@csws16.ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Holloway) writes:
>
>>>All well and good so long as this involves a solely academic discussion,
>>>any semblance of which the animal rights issue has left behind.  When 
>>>activists are busy forcing people to conform to philosophies that are not 
>>>their own choosing - it becomes time to stop this mushy "looking for the 
>
>>Yes, we are so very busy with our whips and chains.  Seriously, all that
>>is being "forced" upon you is open dialogue and mere verbal persuasion.
>
>Come now.  Do you really want to appear so naive.  The polictical groups 
>whose standards you carry are VERY actively involved in trying to change 
>common outlooks, introduce harmful legistlation, terrorize people and 
>subverting public education to the teaching of their own anti-science 
>doctrine.  What you're advocating is so mistaken that it has scared enough 
>people into resisting your cause.  This isn't easy since it has to be done 
>in such a way that the concern for animal WELFARE isn't damaged.

Are you talking about an animal rights group or the meat board, national
dairy council, the nra, etc?

Rob U, it's all a matter of viewpoint

--
-  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!
From: liz@avalon.dartmouth.edu (Liz Bradley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ethics and rec.hunting
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:11:00 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

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:
>
>> For the past month, a woodpecker has been coming around between
>> 7:00 a.m. - 8:15 a.m. and pecking the hell out of my house.  I
>> already tried putting up owl decoys and stuff like that but that
>> only worked temporarily.  I want to kill the woodpecker but I can't
>> very well run out of my house and shoot it because my neighbors might
>> see me and report me or something like that. Does anybody have any
>> ideas on how I can put some sort of trap on my roof to catch Woody?
>
>Now woodpeckers are all protected species, some are even endangered,
>and its illegal to either trap or kill them. Also its likely to be
>unnecessary, the larger woodpeckers tend to be timid and scaring the bird
>a few times will discourage it.
>
>Now you'd expect an outcry from all these ethical hunters because
>
>a) The only thing stopping the poster from shooting a protected,
>   species is fear of discovery - hardly ethical.
>b) The poster wants help in illegally trapping a protected species.
>c) The unidentified woodpecker might even be a threatened species.
>
>But the three replies were:
>
>1) a joke
>2) a suggestion that the poster check for termites
>3) a recollection from someone who (when younger) was going to
>   shoot a pair of Pileated Woodpeckers (threatened in many areas)
>   for the same reason but didn't when saw how pretty they were
>   and instead scared them off.
>
>Instead the raging debate in rec.hunting was whether it was ethical to shoot
>an Elk that is a kilometre away.
>
>Andrew Taylor

The same request was posted on this list much earlier. I never
saw it on rec.hunting (not to say it wasn't though.)
Perhaps you missed my comments here on this list. I am a raptor
rescue volunteer with the Vermont Institute of Natural Science (one
of the most respected ornithological research organisations in the
states). I posted to this list my agreement with "ted" regarding
the use of hawk silloutes(sp?! you know, black profiles!) to deter
the woodpecker (and other birds). Instead of ridiculing hunters
on another list (the charter of which prohibits "moral" discussions)
you should maybe listen to a few of us on this list.

jerry
From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 05:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.144308.4894@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <10zt2!d@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr3.164107.4780@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>
>>>Interesting huh?  I wonder.  Maybe we should come up with a quiz to test 
>>>the knowledge of those in the AR camp wrt deer.....mind you, they could 
>>>always go look up the answers so it might not be terribly useful....
>>>
>> 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.
>
>It could be a mixture of 'common hunting lore' and scientifically 
>established fact.
>
Who is to say the common lore is correct if it isn't scientifically
established?

>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 and that hunters have 
>participated actively in this, I think it is more reasonable to assume the 
>former rather than the latter.
>
I'd agree.  I can't think of a single example of an outright lie in
regards to deer hunting, though I can think of quite a few wrt fox
and otter hunting.  But there may be a few I just haven't caught.
At most, they are a tiny percentage of deer hunting lore, but may
be there.    

>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.
> 
In regards to anti-gun arguments, I agree completely.  I haven't seen 
any true lies at all wrt the hunting debate, from either side.  A few
errors on both sides, but nothing that smacks of malice.

E.S. 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@sasquatch.serum.kodak.com (Rich Young (x37176))
Subject: looking for info on AMPEF
Followup-To: sci.med
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:03:22 GMT

	This is (obviously) a re-post from another group...I figured that
	if ANYONE knew anything about this organization, the posters HERE
	would!  Please note that he's not looking to be flamed, he just
	wants some information.  Followup is already set to the original group.


-Rich (young@serum.kodak.com)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 16260 of sci.med:
From: joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: looking for info on AMPEF
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:46:39 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

Sorry if this in in the wrong group.  I couldn't think of a better one.

Does anyone know about Americans for Medical Progress Education Foundation?
Their slogan is ``Research saves lives'' and their goal is to ``spearhead
the critical effort to educate American opinion leaders and citizens about 
the need for animal research.''  (All quotes are from a full page add in
the WALL STREET JOURNAL.)

My key questions about this group is:
    1. What to they do?
    2. How much of their money goes to that (as opposed to admin and
       overhead)?
    3. Where do they get their money from?

I don't want to start a general animal/research rights argument.
I do want to know if these people do what they say they do, and how
good they are at it.

Joshua Levy  (joshua@veritas.com)
From: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: What are our goals?
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:13:32 GMT
Reply-To: choy@skorpio.Usask.CA
Organization: University of Saskatchewan


Who can identify goals that we should attain and justify the
identifications?

Who can give a fast algorithm for reaching the goals?

Henry Choy
choy@skorpio.usask.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: dpm20384@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Douglas P. Martin)
Subject: US Armed Forces
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 16:20:35 GMT

Recently, I have heard some good arguments for keeping US armed forces
within the United States.  Most of these arguments also entailed using
US troops and equipment for defensive purposes only.  I think there
are good reasons for pulling our troops out of Germany.  Now that the
German states have been reunited and the Soviet Union has fallen apart,
the mission of US troops in Germany is becoming outdated.  Does anyone
have any thoughts on the subject either way?  (This is a serious 
question.)  While I think that US armed forces should be used only to
protect the United States against an agressor, this can concievably be
done in a number of ways.  Any ideas?



-- 
Doug Martin                  :"The legitimate powers of government
dpm20384@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu    : extend to such acts only as are
                             : injurious to others." 
                             :                    -Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Subject: Re: DC Statehood
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 20:54:01 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <7APR199212472131@zeus.tamu.edu> dms0207@zeus.tamu.edu (David Smith) writes:
>I have a couple of questions regarding DC statehood.  I noticed recently that
>J. Jackson is pushing for DC statehood.  
>
>	1.	What is the population of Washington DC?

Slightly over 500,000, if you believe the last census.  The mayor doesn't

>	2.	Why should DC be a state, when people who have moved their
>		knew in advance that there was no voting representation in
>		Congress?

Well, there is the matter of taxation without representation-- Puerto
Rico and the other non-states aren't subject to Federal taxes.

>Also, if the people of DC are so insistent on their voting rights, why not
>have the different sections of the district divided up among the bordering 
>states, with the Federal portion of the district still unrepresented in the
>Congress?

Forget retrocession-- Va got its section back a long time ago, and we
MDers don't want DC!


-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
From: laupalt@polaris.utu.fi (Lauri Veli Tuomas Paltemaa)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Why do we all believe war is inevitable?
Date: 11 Apr 92 11:19:51 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland


 	Your theory gives me an impression, that some biological
	laws of nature lead us, and there is nothing we can do
	about it.
	 In my oppinion we human beings are not ants. We can 
	control our behaviour and we are consistent of it.
	Politics are part of our behaviour. War is politics
	continued by other methods ( Clausewitz ). It is all
	about our known motives and ways to run them. A war can
	allways be evated by negotiations. 
	 Your base your theory on our natural motives. The truth
	is, that it is not those motives, that lead us to wars,
	but the ways we satisfy them. No war is inevitable unless
        we self want it.

	
	  Behave yourselves.
	   Laupalt@polaris.cc.utu.fi
From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: US Armed Forces
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:44:50 GMT
Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research

In article <29ED8D48.26435@noiro.acs.uci.edu>, Carl Edman (ce) writes:

ce> No. Contrary to popular belief Germany is perfectly well allowed to  
ce> station troops in the countries of NATO allies and has done so in the  
ce> past.

I thought the restriction was Europe rather than NATO. Oh well,
wouldn't matter anyway, they could just declare America part of
Europe:-). 

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk				_O_
						 |<
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:1979 talk.politics.misc:17422
From: sm6f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven M. Maliszewski)
Newsgroups: talk.politi,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Jerry Brown for President '92
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:30:17 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


                  Phone 1-800-426-1112 for national headquarters
                   or 412-471-8876 for Pittsburgh headquarters

                       Volunteer We need your help

Campaign Statement - In the words of Jerry Brown

Our governing institutions don't belong to us anymore.  They have been
taken over by an elite who are so driven by greed that they have learned
to profit as our country declines and people suffer.  Their control of
politics is crushing democracy and producing massive disengagement.

That is why I have rejected the time-worn politics of big money ans
started an insurgent movement relying on the people themselves--taking
contributions only up to $100 and attacking the de facto merger of both
parties into a Washington Party of corruption and careerism.

Our country was founded on a premise and a promise.

The premise was that each of us was created equal and endowed with
inalienable rights.

The promise was that each of us would have the opportunity to exercise
thouse rights and thereby perfect out liberty.

What is lacking is the commitment--the commitment to redeem the promise
of America.  That is what presidential campaigns must be about or they
are about nothing.

I see an America where the people themeselves join together and demand
change, where we do not divide ourselves into middle class and under
class.  Rather, we discover the meaning of caring in a country that
leaves no one out.

Concretely, this means a commitment to a Family Bill of Rights where:

1.  Every person has the right to health care.
2.  Every person has the right to a living wage.
3.  Every person has the right todecent shelter and to be free from hunger.
4.  Every person has the right to an education.
5.  Every person has the right to be secure in their old age.

That's my commitment--And if you join, it will be our commitment.  And
it will be done.

                  Phone 1-800-426-1112 for national headquarters
                   or 412-471-8876 for Pittsburgh headquarters

                       Volunteer We need your help