HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:02:18 GMT

In article <1ifgchINNngm@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.072251.6605@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>
>I have always drawn the line where killing for the sake of killing I feel
>is wrong.  Sme hunters hunt for food - and they use what they kill in
>a constructive way - but that does not represent all hunters (refer to
>the respect thing once again, as everyone is different).  My objection was
>to people who kill moose, rhinos, cats, what have you for the sake of
>killing or sticking them on their wall for show or trophy  -- what a waste.
>What an egotistical waste.  Never did I claim that ALL hunters do this
>(again - you are putting words in my mouth and stereotyping anybody who
>differs in your viewpoint towards hunting) - but SOME do.  Got it?
>

No argument there, or from the vast majority of hunters I have known/read.
Most of this pure trophy hunting has been long out of fashion. Though modern
hunters still keep trophies, and indeed make a special effort to kill "trophy"
quality animals, for the most part the meat is also used. In fact, wasting 
meat of a game animal is illegal and punishable by imprisonment in at least 
one state (Colorado). 
   I would add aerial and canned "hunts" to the list of despicable practices.
The reason for the quotes is that, to me, these practices are not hunting, 
but merely killing.

Jeff Achenbach
Xref: sparky talk.politics.animals:10973 alt.peeves:18958
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Alaska Wolf Killing Suspended / interventionist conservation
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:00:09 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

Paul Roberts writes:
>>
>>Well Greg, it's not that I have a burning desire to discuss "Animal Rights"
>>(Bwahaha), I'm posting here to point out how utterly absurd such an idea
>>really is.  Animals are animals, Greg, and the fact is that they are under-
>>neath us in the food chain (usually).  Their importance can't possibly
>>compare with ours ...
>
>Seems to me that all you are pointing out is some deep-seated
>insecurity when you make assertions like this. What is this
>"importance" that you are so keen to assert?

It seems to me that you're pointing out your own deep-seated insecurity by
attempting to imply that I am insecure.  I'm quite secure in my ability to
kill and eat any animal on the planet except man.  So what's your point?

>Yes, animals are animals. Blacks are blacks, Jews are Jews, and
>trees are trees. So what? 

And modems are modems and diaphragms are diaphragms and aborted fetuses are
aborted fetuses.  Shall we go on?

     don
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:37:44 GMT

From article <mhulsey-090193145029@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> The case of the Silver Spring monkeys was a legal defeat for PETA for two
> reasons:
> 
> 1) Taub was fully exhonorated.

Hmm.  In deference to the standard of proof that you advocate when 
it suits your convenience, let me remind you that you haven't 
refuted the Washington Post's claim that Taub's conviction was 
overturned because of a legal technicality.  

I agree with you, however, that people ought to be viewed as innocent
until their guilt is proven in a court of law.   Are you willing to
extend the same consideration to Pacheco that you demand for Taub?

One point still troubles me.  You've stated that your sole source of
information was an article written by Taub himself, and that Taub's
article was based on a trial transcript.

I wrote:
rl> Do you have any proof, apart from Taub's assertions, to support this 
rl> claim?   
rl> 
rl> The reason I'm asking is that a previous contributor to 
rl> talk.politics.animals claimed that he had met Taub personally on 
rl> several occasions and that Taub had stated that neither he nor 
rl> his attorneys had a transcript of the trial, and for this reason,
rl> were obliged to rely on their recollection of events.  This weakness 
rl> was cited as the cause of the "misunderstanding" that led to Katie 
rl> McCabe's erroneous allegations in the infamous Washingtonian 
rl> article.  

You replied:
mh> At that time, Taub might not have had a copy of the transcript.  He now
mh> does.

Somebody's not telling the truth.  When did Taub write the article for
the CFAR?   And how do you know that Taub was relying on the transcript,
rather than his own notes or the notes of his attorneys?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Otto's Inanity (was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack)
Keywords: hunting sex beer false analogy ethics straw 
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.075610.28170@leland.Stanford.EDU> vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.073650.7746@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
>>In article <1icvvlINN9l5@agate.berkeley.edu> sherw@ocf.berkeley.edu (Gregory Sherwin) writes:
>>>In article <viking.726218466@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>
>Jesus Mary, are you really this thick or do you just like to shoot at straw men when the animals are shy?
>The essential fact that you seem to need to have explicitly stated (and everybody else here got past
>long ago) is that hunting *always* involves the death and suffering of sentient beings (often ones on
>which other beings are dependent) so that some kind of excuse is necessary for it to be considered
>ethical. This is why Sherwin points out that it is not necessary for survival and this is why the
>other hunters here are actively defending what they do instead of mindlessly repeating the same irrelevant
>theme ad nauseam.
>

Gee, I guess I wasn't really hunting when I was carrying my bow around the
woods this past fall. I didn't kill anything! Well, the season's not over
yet, so I still may be able to really "hunt".
  BTW, do you equate death and suffering? Is there no such thing, in your
opinion, as a painless death?

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:48:58 GMT

From article <C0G62G.9I8@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca:
> In <C0EnLC.Hyn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> 
>>I can't speak for other AR activists, but I prefer to base my judgments
>>of "good" and "bad" on the facts and arguments, rather than appealing to
>>conventions.  To give you an example, I'd say that torture is wrong
>>because it hurts... not because it violates a law.
> 
> Giving birth hurts too, but surely you wouldn't say that it is wrong.
> Sometimes pain is acceptable, sometimes it's not. What is acceptable
> is determined by convention.

Acceptability and convention are equivalent terms.
Would torture be "good" if it were acceptable/conventional?

(Yes, I realize that pain isn't always bad).

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: banta@abingdon.Eng.Sun.COM (242 lbs before cooking)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: why hunting is unethical
Date: 11 Jan 1993 17:58:23 GMT
Organization: FizzBall Racing
NNTP-Posting-Host: abingdon

(Werner) writes:
>This is repeatedly stated as an axiom. Restating something doesn't
>justify it. _What_ makes it unethical?

Get with it, Werner.  You *obviously* having been paying attention.
In the Bunny Hugger Bylaws, it is clearly stated: "Shrillness is a
valid form of proof."

Sheesh.

drew
banta@abingdon.sun.com
--
"The only sports are auto racing and bull fighting, all the rest are games."

						--Ernest Hemingway
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:43:18 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan5.235340.7158@beaver.cs.washington.edu> nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

>(1) hunting causes an animal to suffer as a direct result of it bringing
>enjoyment to the hunter.  if there were no suffering, there would be no
>enjoyment.  if you disagree, then why don't you leave your guns or bullets
>or arrows at home? (**)
What an entirely foolish and ignorant statement.  The reasons for hunting 
are many, however one of the main reasons (for me at least) is to provide
clean, natural meat for my family.  That I enjoy all the other aspects of
hunting doesn't make it unethical.  I don't *enjoy* any animal suffering
as you so stupidly suggest and I pass up shots that might not make a clean
(read minimum suffering) kill.  I use a proper caliber rifle that will ensure
the best possibility of a quick death for this purpose.  Perhaps you should
familiarize yourself with the act of hunting before you make such inflam-
matory statements.


>(2) Hunting is completely non-consensual.  Do animals willingly come up to
>you and request being shot?  Or do they run away and try to hide from you?


That's the way of the world Nick.  Hunting is natural whether you choose to
admit it or not.  Perhaps you'd like us to use sticks and stones instead of
bullets and arrow so that we may be more natural.  I might point out that
the prey would be just as dead and no doubt would suffer far more than with
efficient modern arms.  You wouldn't want that now would you?


>-- Nick

>(**) yes, yes, the folks who need to hunt in order to survive are chiming in
>now.  There are two purposes for hunting: to survive, and for fun.  to the
>extent that you hunt only for survival then I agree with Greg Sherwin: it is
>OK with me (although its hard to imagine that in today's society there could
>possibly be very many of you out there); but to the extent that you hunt for
>fun then you are being unethical.

I don't think you fully realize how many sighs of relief where given when you
stated that hunting for survival is "OK" with you Nick!  


Mike Linan











Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: analogy: hunting and sex [was Re: Colorado Hunters under attack]
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:12:51 GMT

nick@skate.cs.washington.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick) writes:

	You sure you didn't go to Berkeley? ;-)


>(1) hunting causes an animal to suffer as a direct result of it bringing
>enjoyment to the hunter.  if there were no suffering, there would be no
>enjoyment.  if you disagree, then why don't you leave your guns or bullets
>or arrows at home? (**)

	Why should I?  Contrary to your assumptions, the most enjoyable
kill is a painless, immediate kill.  This is a pat-on-the-back sort of
enoyment, similar to finally making that slam-dunk shot in basketball.
Of course, the former takes a lot more time and effort.  I see no reason
I need bow to your whims because some animal might not like my killing it.
That's life on the low end of the food chain.  To suggest that I leave my
bullets or arrows at home simply shows that, to you, hunting is only a
kill, while to the hunter is is far, far more.

>(2) Hunting is completely non-consensual.  Do animals willingly come up to
>you and request being shot?  Or do they run away and try to hide from you?

	If I do well, they don't even know I'm there.  When was the last
time an animal asked you to take its picture or pet it?  Petting zoo's
and domestic animals don't count.

>but to the extent that you hunt for
>fun then you are being unethical.

	And you're being overly-simplistic.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Deer Population Control Mechanisms
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:42:29 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

From Ted Robinson
-------
Summary:

Food source as a controlling mechanism, either through starvation or through
fertility regulation, provides a *restoring* mechanism that drives the
population back to the equilibrium point. Predator control, on the other
hand, exacerbates the problem, leading to a divergence from the equilibrium
point. Viewed this way, predator control would seem to be a really shitty way
to maintain equilibrium - Nature usually does better than this.

Comments?
-----

Yes.  
Some ecology textbooks have excellent descriptions of preditor/prey/
food-source cycles. The various departments of natural resources
in all US states are also good sources for inquiries about
statistical ecology. It is well worth the effort of checking out
these sources. While it's fun trying to set up ecological
models all by oneself, it's always good to review one's working
assumptions and equations with others who have been through it
long ago. 

Also:
   1) Fertility regulation, predation and starvation are roughly analogous
      with respect to limiting the number of births in a population.
      (All reduce the number of fertile individuals.)

   2) In simple systems, preditor/prey populations also reach 
      an approximate equilibrium. Oscillatory behavoir is often seen
      in both food-limited and predation-limited scenarios.  
      (Fertility rates and the rates of resource replenishment aren't
      often the same.)

   3) What makes a mechanism "better" depends on what criteria are 
      used. What does it mean to say "Nature usually does better than this."
      With respect to what? Equilibrium?   


Regards, 
Tim Ikeda
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:19:51 GMT

From article <mhulsey-050193092818@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <mhulsey-040193101852@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>,
> mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <C07Bwo.EFA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> > Do you have any proof to demonstrate that I made "false claims" about
>> > Singer's position?
>> 
>> Yes, you asked me how Hitler's support for animal "rights" might differ
>> from that of Regan or Singer.  You were falsely implying that Singer
>> supported animal "rights."  I will find your exact statement and post it
>> later.
> 
> ++++++++++ begin reposted excerpt
> 
> In article <BzF9IL.7C4@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>>[...]
>> 
>> I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
>> rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
>> philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
>> that was espoused by the nazis.
> 
>>[...]
> 
> ++++++++++ end reposted excerpt
> 
> I hope that this puts an end to your squirming on this subject.  Despite
> the fact that you are incapable of acknowledging your own errors, you make
> them just the same.

Did you notice the quotation marks around the phrase, "animal rights"
philosophy in the passage above?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Colorado Hunters under attack
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 07:31:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.201532.15874@wam.umd.edu> bast@wam.umd.edu (Jaguar) writes:
>People today do hunt for sustinance reasons. Many of my friends hunt.

Glad to hear it.

[Other good stuff deleted -- cut to the chase]

>a natural predator. Hunters tend to take healthy, mature individuals, whereas
>predators take the old, young or weakened.

Hunters, human and otherwise, have to take the opportunities that are
presented.  It is not like hunters go to a corral and pick a deer from
the group that suits them.  Healthy deer are most likely to be able
to detect a hunter and avoid them before the hunter ever sees them  --
a healthy deer uses scent, sound and sight to avoid predators.  Mature
deer have proven ability to recognize danger signs - that's how they
survive to maturity.[C But deer make mistakes, and a healthy deer can
fail to notice a cunning hunter, well hidden, waiting silently, and
downwind of the deer.  Human or predator, a highly skilled hunter can
take a healthy deer -- but there will be more opportunities for taking
the young, the old (as opposed to mature) and the weakened for both
human and other animal predators.  Hunters, as concerned game managers,
avoid taking fawns as a management policy.  Predators do not take
such safeguards to assure the continuation of game availability.
But there are many hunters who believe that the meat of a younger
(but non-fawn) deer is more tender and tasty that the older "trophy"
buck (the taste factor is disputed).  The vehicles which run down
and kill thousands of deer anually are not selective, either, but
kill those deer, healthy or not, which make mistakes.

>Sadly, all it would take is one wolf mauling one human, and out go the
>predators in the eye of public opinion.
Nice theory.  Too bad it was proven wrong with the California mountain
lions which are now prowling the suburbs.

>Jaguar
>dropping in her nickle's worth

I see your nickel, and I raise you a nickel.

Mary Otto




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys was: Re: PETA in hot water
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:35:44 GMT

In article <mhulsey-040193101852@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>,
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) wrote:
> 
> In article <C07Bwo.EFA@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> > Do you have any proof to demonstrate that I made "false claims" about
> > Singer's position?
> 
> Yes, you asked me how Hitler's support for animal "rights" might differ
> from that of Regan or Singer.  You were falsely implying that Singer
> supported animal "rights."  I will find your exact statement and post it
> later.

++++++++++ begin reposted excerpt

In article <BzF9IL.7C4@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
> rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
> philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
> that was espoused by the nazis.

>[...]

++++++++++ end reposted excerpt

I hope that this puts an end to your squirming on this subject.  Despite
the fact that you are incapable of acknowledging your own errors, you make
them just the same.

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin G. Hulsey)
Neuroscience, NRA-ILA, SSIB, NAASO, IASO
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: re:rights?
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:20:36 GMT

From article <mhulsey-060193092610@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
> In article <C0EJun.Gw5@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
>> 
>> From article <mhulsey-050193105134@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
>>[...]
>> As I pointed out previously, I've discussed this particular incident for 
>> weeks-on-end on two separate occasions and I truly do not wish to dive
>> into it without giving the topic a greater "rest".
> 
> Yes, you have discussed this topic for months-on-end without providing any
> references to support your claims.  Before you "give the topic a rest," you
> should provide these references, or retract your claim.  These are the same
> standards that you and Bob Black set forth for me in a previous exchange.

Was there a particular claim that you doubted?  

I provided the full text of a reference just the other day, Martin.  When
do you think you'll get around to posting some references, apart from
Taub's own claims published in an opinionated newsletter, to support your 
claims in the Silver Spring Monkey business?

Incidently, I'm also waiting for answers to my questions concerning your
claims re: the nazis.

> ...
>> > The comment that you made in an earlier post about DOD animal research
>> > being exempt from the AWA also disturbs me.  However, it is typical for the
>> > government to pass laws for us, then exempt themselves.  
>> 
>> This doesn't make sense.  HHS is a part of the government, and it's
>> HHS funding procedures that were most heavily affected by the AWA.
> 
> I said it was typical.  I did not say that it made sense.

Your statement didn't make sense, Martin.  If you believe that the
"government" is at fault for limitations in the AWA, perhaps you'll
be willing to tell us whether the various anti-AR organizations that
you support are in favor of having military research subject to the
same requirements that presently apply to research funded by HHS.

>> > I see no reason
>> > why military researchers should not also be obliged to justify their
>> > projects to a review committee composed of military researchers, although I
>> > could see reasons for keeping the information therein from the press &
>> > public (for some time) for the sake of national security.
>> 
>> I can understand this argument, but it falls apart when the researcher
>> turns around and argues that his work is driven, not by military objectives,
>> but altruistic ones.
> 
> Did the PI in the cat-shooting experiemnt make altruistic claims about
> his/her objectives?

Yes.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals