From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:03:44 GMT

Robert Black writes:

[stuff deleted, we are talking about the controversy surrounding DU
 Canada's new office building:]

>Obviously this is not the final word and you may wish to dismiss it as
>TM propaganda, but the July 13 issue of NEWSWEEK page 63 discussed this
>question.  The article seems to oscillate between a pro-DU and anti-DU
>posture.  For example it gives DU credit for spending $1 million and
>then turning marginal farmland into a site where 260 species of birds
>can be sited.

Bob, let me assure you that I do *not* intend to "dismiss it as TM
propaganda."  I'm very concerned an am waiting for Jim P. to get his
copy of the study on it so he can give us more info.  I support DU
Canada (I was even wearing one of their "50 Years of Conservation -
Ducks Unlimited Canada" t-shirts just yesterday), and if they did some
stupid sh-- in that marsh, I want to know about it.


>On the other hand, it mentions the call for a moratorium on the nearly
>finished building by the American Ornithologists' Union.  It also quotes
>Peter Berle, president of the National Audubon Society, as saying,"We
>cannot comprehend the rationale that led [them] to [build] an office 
>complex in a premier public wildlife refuge."

Again, I want more info, since based on their past work, I find it
quite surprising that they would do something to hurt habitat (again,
I'm not saying that they didn't screw up in this case).


[more stuff deleted]
>jsve wrote:
>>I don't recall saying that AR folk fear open exchanges (in fact, you
>>folk seem to get off on shouting and name-calling if my encounters
>>with you, such as the other night, are any indication).  Rather, I
>>said that you fear the truth.  Especially if the general public is
>>made aware of it (you're coming for Ronald ;-( ).
>
>On the contrary, the only way to succeed in the long run IMO is to
>win over the general public.

I wish you the best of luck, since I fear it will not be an easy task.
;-)


[more stuff deleted]
>jsve wrote:
>>Forgive me if I decline your magnanimous offer, Bob.  But I'm not all
>>that into defending such pigeon shoots, if you know what I mean.  And
>>despite the Rev. Neimollier's (sp?) words, I can't take the time off
>>right now.
>
>Sorry to hear that, but it's understandable.  BTW it wasn't necessarily
>to defend the pigeon shoot, that I was urging you to go.  It was a
>proposal offered in response to your call for pro-hunters to make a
>showing at AR gatherings.  This should be a big gathering and one of
>your best opportunities.

Just to clarify my position, I don't agree with canned shoots and
therefore I cannot defend them directly, but I will (adamantly) defend
another hunter that wants to participate in such a shoot.  If that
makes any sense.


>>     Oh, and while I have a higher opinion of cow dung than I do of
>>anyone that would support the actions of a group like ALF 
>
>Well now I'm intersted in how you've formed this opinion of ALF?  Do
>you know any members?  Is it based on their public statement made after
>the recent Michigan State U incident (which appears in a recent copy
>of the ANIMALS' VOICE magazine, vol 5 number 2 - I think)?
>
>Or is it based on the "propaganda" (your word) that's printed in hunting
>magazines? It couldn't be based on The Media (newspapers, evening news),
>because you've told me that they are biased in favor of the AR position,
>right? So, in your view, how does one go about getting accurate
>information?

That's an interesting question (no doubt why you asked it :-).  My
opinion has been formed based on violent actions which they claimed
credit for, as well as Ingrid Newkirk's statement that even though
PETA knows about ALF's actions ahead of time, there is no reason why
they should report them to the authorities.  (Note: that same
statement says something about PETA, as well. :-( )
     Perhaps I should also clarify my statement about how I see the
media representing you folk.  When I said that they portray you people
in far too good a light, I meant you AR folk in general, not fringe
groups like ALF.  Sure ALF gets bad headlines for you, but in general,
I still see the media as always taking your side and portraying you
folk as the good guys when you go up against hunters and such.  I
never see stuff like "Hunters harassed by AR folk while legally
hunting for food."  Instead I see the typical "Courageous AR folk
stand up to evil-nasty-mean-cruel-"assault-rifle"-toting-Bambi-slaying--
scum-of-the-earth hunters in an effort to save poor,fluffy,brown-eyed
little balls of fur frolicking in the sun" kinds of headlines.  Did I
forget the part about rednecks? :-)  That's my overall impression.
You folks get a lot of good press that you don't deserve (again we're
back to the individual vs. herd argument that separates our
viewpoints).


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