HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:36:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.203311.2635@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.223431.4626@convex.com> jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>>>Perhaps your fondest dream:  Get Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle in the
>>>crosshairs for a debate!
>>> 
>>So what`s the real reason we can't find even two hunters out of the bunch who
>>are willing to test their views against two members of the opposition?  If the
>>leaders of the AR movement are simply disseminators of misinformation,
>>wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity for those level-headed hunters to
>>give us the facts?  Or are hunters afraid to test beliefs based largely on
>>tradition and myth against the well-founded arguments of Ingrid and Wayne?
>
>>My guess is that the hunters will prove
>>themselves to be the cowards we AR folks suspect they are.
>

Well, dammit, woman, you've insulted my manhood! I'm so offended I should
just cancel my plans for the weekend and ride to Austin. Challenge you to
a duel or somesuch. 
  Is this the kind of crap the AR leaders are feeding you? That hunters are
cowardly weasels taking out their fears of inadequacy on poor helpless little
fuzzy cute animals? Get a grip, lady.
  With longer notice, I may have been tempted. Rationally, however, I know
it would be stupid. I have no experience with public debates or the media.
The only thing I would be afraid of is doing damage through my ineptitude.
The hunting community has far better spokespeople than myself. Or is that 
the point? Are those cowardly AR people looking for some palookas so that 
their professionals can score an easy knockout?


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:05:08 GMT

In article <BvD7pB.2B3@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

[...]

>I know several people with dysfunctional kidneys who would take 
>issue with Rich's claim that they're "effectively dead".   They still
>lead full and rewarding lives and might resent the notion that
>human existence is defined by limbs and organs, rather than by
>thinking and feeling abilities.
>
>Perhaps Rich will surprise both of us by telling the world that it's
>really ok to kill kidney patients, but I doubt it.    

	What does the following statement mean to you, Russell:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <1992Aug22.175923.25363@pixel.kodak.com>:

...the fatal flaw...makes the organism irrelevant to the discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

	Not "irrelevant," Russell, "irrelevant to the discussion."


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:47:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.201821.13318@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.144003.9175@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>>> 
>>I've known both gun hunters and bow hunters to wound and lose deer. IMO, 
>>most could have been found had the hunters practiced their tracking skills.
>
>Perhaps in some cases.  That depends on how far the deer was able to
>move, what the conditions were, how good the trail was, ...  
>
>But notice that by introducing the need for better tracking skills,
>you're shifting toward the view that the wounds were not sufficient to
>induce rapid death. 
>

Rapid is a relative term. A deer can cover a lot of ground in 2 or 3 
minutes, which to me is rapid. That's why so much space in outdoor 
magazines is devoted to the art of tracking after the shot. Unfortunately,
there are people who don't do it well. 

>
>>Individual deer can be recognizable, much the same as purebred dogs of the 
>>same breed. For me, it would take more than one sighting, unless there was
>>something outstanding about that individual, like a nontypical rack. 

I thought about this while hunting this weekend. Although it is of course 
impossible to be sure, I'm fairly certain that I recognized several does that
I'd seen earlier. This is based on location (whitetails tend to have a rather
small home range), herd size, and differences in coloration. For example, on
Friday I jumped 2 deer in a small woodlot. One was reddish brown, the other 
gray. On Saturday, I crept into the same area. I heard one running and saw 
another, which was a reddish brown doe. My guess (and I freely admit it is 
a guess) is that they were the same two deer. 

Your
>>relative made a poor shot. He either didn't practice enough, shot beyond his
>>effective range, or hit an obstruction. Buck fever is the most likely reason.
>>So what never happened to him in 20 years? A nonfatal hit? That just says 
>>he is a better shot with a rifle than a bow. Operator error, pure and simple.
>
>Operator error?  Benke lists excitement and stress (buck fever, as
>you say), but then finds that, beyond this, a higher than acceptable
>wounding rate is inherently built into the activity itself.
>

Buck fever qualifies as operator error. If I ever lose the excitement when
spotting a deer, I'll probably quit hunting. However, one must learn to 
control it.

Jeff Achenbach
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:23:47 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Not at all.  In posing questions about the statement, "Thou shalt
rl> not suffer a witch to live", I was hoping that Mike would explain
rl> the apparent lack of harmony between his frequent use of the word
rl> "idiot", as a perjorative label for his opponents, and his own
rl> mindless acceptance of the King James bible as the literal word
rl> of his "god".  Given his penchant for labeling non-christians as
rl> "fools", without regard to the reasons for their non-belief, it
rl> seems to me that his definition of the word "idiot" must differ
rl> substantially from the normal english connotation of the word,
rl> ie., as a stupid individual who can't think clearly.

From article <1992Oct2.155431.14889@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Russell, why so insulting?  How do you know that Mike's
jh> religious belief is "mindless acceptance."  

He told me so.  Ask him to explain the difference between faith 
and reason.  He'll tell you that he admires faith (ie mindless 
acceptance) far more than reason, and considers me to be a "fool" 
because I prefer empirical evidence and rational arguments.  

jh> Sure, he may be what's termed a "literalist" but, nevertheless, 
jh> there is something going on in his mind that has made him choose 
jh> his faith.  You may not like fundamentalism any more than me;  I 
jh> however do not ridicule his belief just as I do not ridicule your 
jh> point-of-view and the intense energy and countless hours you 
jh> devote of your life to your concern for animals.  

It's not my intention to ridicule his religion.  However, I would 
like to discover how/why a man whose own beliefs are based on 
"faith" can reasonably label another man's comments as "idiotic".  
Can you explain it to me?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:26:27 GMT

From article <1992Oct2.160107.15018@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Back to hunters hunting hunters.  I asked if you felt it was an
jh> "idiotic" assertion:

And I explained my contention that the use of labels like "idiotic" is 
usually inappropriate and uninformative.

-- 
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: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:10:40
	<viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	<1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Okay, let me quote Benke directly, rather than rely on my less-than-perfect 
   memory and imprecise terminology:

      "While collecting deer in my research, I tied baiting and had an unusual
      experience - twice.  On two occasions spiked buck came in to my shelled
      corn at a distance of 15 yards.  In both instances I shot while the deer
      were broadside, with their heads lowered.  Both times the abdomen was my
      intended target, but that wasn't where I hit them.  At the sound of the
      shot, these deer turned 180 degrees and were struck in the back leg that
      had been opposite me. 

If his arrow passed through the animal (which is very likely), he has
no way of knowing which was the entrance wound and which was the exit
wound.  Perhaps the arrow hit the inside of the far thigh.

      "When an animal jumps the string, it is virtually impossible for anyone
      to place his shot.  Therefore, all the current talk about knowing the
      limitations of one's shooting ability and the limitations of his
      equipment is nonsense.  These limitations are established by animals'
      ability to hear the release of the arrow and move a minimum of six
      inches before it reaches them.

This is contrary to everything I have seen.  In fact, you can see it
for yourself.  Rent a bowhunting video and watch the shots.  The
poorer the video, the more kill scenes they will show.  Check out a
Dan Fitzgerald video.  His videos are just deer "snuff flicks".  On
any given video, you should see 6 or so hits, usually repeated over
and over in slow motion.  You will notice that some deer do move but
certainly not "a minimum of six inches".


I'd like to add that these videos are extremely graphic - especially
Fitzgerald videos.  I can't believe I am recommending them to
nonhunters or antihunters.  However, they do make one point quite
clear: quick human kills are quite possible with archery equipment. 

I'd also like to add that even I am disgusted by the lack of respect
for the animal shown in some of the poorer videos.  Dan Fitzgerald is
one the worst in this regard.  He shoots a powerful bow and his shots
are well-placed so the animals go down quickly.  However, he is quite
disgusting after the shot.

tim
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:58:48 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <viking.717317750@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan 
Sorenson) writes:

>  and the amount
> of cotton organically grown is so miniscule as to be irrellevant if you
> mean to include no fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and the like. 
 
Sometime in the last week I read an article about a line of clothing using 
organic cotton that's going to be distributed through Macy's and Penney's. 
The main point made was that no dyes are used, but I believe they also said 
the cotton was organically grown. I may be mistaken on this last point and, 
unfortunately, I can't remember where I read it.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Downed Animal Legislation
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:46:25 GMT
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

Robert Black writes:

>The Downed Animal Protection Act of 1992, S 2296 and HR 5680 state:
>
>  It shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer
>  to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, or hold nonambulatory
>  livestock unless the livestock has been humanely euthanized.

[...]
>We have seen and heard many hunters express their concern for the
>welfare of animals.  Here's an issue where hunters may be able to lend
>support.  It does not threaten any hunting activities and it can relieve
>unnecessary animal suffering.  AR intervention on the "downer" problem
>is making a difference by increasing public awareness and sensitizing
>stockyard operators to the need for a change. 

Bob, since you are our resident expert (dubious honour, no doubt), I
have another question before I fire letters off to my congressmen
about this.  Just out of curiosity, *why* does everyone keep these
animals alive under these circumstances?  Is it (presumably) due to
some dopey FDA regulation that says the animal must stay alive and be
killed on the slaugterhouse floor?  What gives?  Have you heard any
justification for this practice?  I'd like to know what it is before I
lick the stamps.... :-)


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: The ethics of wool vs synthetics
Keywords: wool synthetics animal rights environment
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 21:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.161446.11590@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>In the September issue of "Threads" magazine, a publication for the
>practitioners of the needlearts, sewing, weaving, and spinning, there
>is an article by a woman who spins yarn and makes sweaters from the
>hair of her Samoyed dog.  The hair is obtained from gathering shed
>hair and by combing.

Real cool. I will do the same thing with my beloved bouncy baby bunny
since he's the _really_ long-haired type and now is shedding profusely.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
From: korpela@rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric J. Korpela)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Attribution Disease (was Re: Should humans assign "status"?)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 23:36:27 GMT
Organization: Cal Berkeley-- Space Sciences Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.ssl.berkeley.edu
Summary: I can't believe you really need to be told this again!

In article <BvD4Fy.14C@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep29.174553.8118@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com:>> [7 lines deleted]
>
>So you say.
>

This news group seems plagued by attribution disease.  The above
post is an example.  But Russ is not the only culprit.

A couple requests for everyone who is planning to post mass quantities
of garbage today...

1.  Delete as much attribution as possible.  Summarize deleted text
    if necessary.

2.  If you don't have more original text than attribution, don't 
    post it.  It's probably not worth saying anyway.

3.  If you really don't have anything to say (as in above post)
    don't post it at all.

4.  Do you really need to write a rebuttal to every sentence?
    Probably not.  Write a rebuttal to the entire post in
    a single concise statement.

Those of us that read more than we post are probably getting tired of
posts that are 96k of attributions followed by 3 lines of new text.
If you really feel the need to post like that, do it via email.  No one
is reading those posts anyway, other than your immediate opponent.


Eric Korpela                                    |  The two most common things
korpela@cea.berkeley.edu              Internet  |  in the universe are
BKYAST::KORPELA    42215::KORPELA     DecNet    |  Hydrogen and stupidity.
korpela%bkyast@ucbjade                Bitnet    |       -Harlan Ellison
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:52:01
	<viking.718076141@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	<1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:24:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.172447.22649@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Okay, let me quote Benke directly, rather than rely on my less-than-perfect 
   memory and imprecise terminology:

      "While collecting deer in my research, I tied baiting and had an unusual
      experience - twice.  On two occasions spiked buck came in to my shelled
      corn at a distance of 15 yards.  In both instances I shot while the deer
      were broadside, with their heads lowered.  Both times the abdomen was my
      intended target, but that wasn't where I hit them.  At the sound of the
      shot, these deer turned 180 degrees and were struck in the back leg that
      had been opposite me. 

There is another point about baiting that I'd like to mention.  Deer
are very nervous at bait piles.  They instinctively know that they are
vulnerable while eating.  They aren't looking around and their ears
are filled with chewing noise.  So they eat very quickly, go someplace
safer and rechew their food as cud from their first stomach.  So this
is another reason not to hunt over bait.

However, I just noticed something.  Benke says 'while collecting deer
in my research...'  So I don't think he was really hunting.  He also
was aiming for the gut which no one would do while hunting.  Perhaps
he had a special permit to collect data on the efficiency of archery
equipment.  I just can't figure out why his results were so different
from my experience.

tim
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:53:57 GMT

In article <1a828uINNn5n@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>jjohnson@convex.com (Jenifer L. Johnson) writes:
>
>> Included in those 700 are Ted Nugent, self-proclaimed hunting 
>> advocate [who will do a ] 30-minute mini-concert to attract 
>> attention to his anti-drug, pro-hunting message directed at kids, 
>> and quoted Nugent as saying, "The kids listen to me because I play 
>> rock n' roll, and I speak the truth with great passion.  It works 
>> like magic."
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Nugent was
>among those rock musicians who would, while up on stage,
>stomp small animals to death.  I may be mistaken about this;
>a number of rock stars engaged in this practice, and I
>*think* Nugent was one, but I could be wrong.  (Can anybody
>confirm this?)
>

I've never heard such a thing, and find it appalling that you would state 
it on a newsnet with no verification. An extremely serious breach of ethics,
I would think. If you don't find proof, will you post a retraction and 
apology? 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:21 GMT

In article <RIGG.92Sep30190220@osnome.che.wisc.edu> rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.201821.13318@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>The were 5 deer shot and recovered very quickly.  One was wounded and
>probably died.  The other four shots were misses for one reason or
>another.
>
>Of the five deer that died quickly, here is a summary:
>
>1)  Shot through the lungs and the center of the heart.  Ran 40 yards
>and fell over.
>
>2)  Shot though rear thigh and the gut.  Ran 50 yards, lied (sp?) down
>and died.
>
>3)  Shot in the heart and both lungs.  Ran 40 yards and fell.
>
>4)  Shot in the spine and fell on the spot.
>
>5)  Shot though both lungs and perhaps the main artery going to the
>head.  Ran 50 yards and fell over (this is the deer mentioned in my
>trip report posted to rec.hunting).
>
>
>The deer that was not recovered was shot too far back which hit the
>stomach, a bit of the lung, and the far shoulder bone.  The vone
>prevented the arrow from passing though which made recovery less
>likely.  I'll concede that this deer probably died without beng
>recovered.  I'd like to add that we followed the deer for about 8
>hours, over about 2 miles, and though 6 creek crossings.  Eventually
>the blood stopped.  I was able to follow the hoof tracks for another
>hundred yards or so until they joined with some more tracks and I lost
>them.
>
>tim

Your record here and as described when we discussed this several months
ago is significantly better than all the results I've seen listed in at
least 18 different studies.  This is somewhat puzzling because "as these
are hunter reported data, it is felt they are conservative." (quoted
from the Texas study conducted by Boydston and Gore, which I listed
previously). 

In one case where dogs were used to ferret out the crippled (in Kerr
WMA, if my memory is correct), the wounding rates were even worse than
those reported by hunters - thus lending support to the Boydston and
Gore thesis that hunters would tend to understate the problem. 

Since I've posted a number of these studies in replies to Jeff Achenbach,
then I recommend that you and others send for copies and determine for
yourself why there is such a discrepancy.  That's what I plan to do.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.