HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:58:56 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

(Glad to see you back Mr. Pleis.  The humor potential of t.p.a went down when
 classes let out)

Mark Pleis writes:
>Ferrell S. Wheeler writes:
>>          THE IOWA ALLIANCE FOR ANIMALS INVITES YOU TO ATTEND
>>           The First Midwest Regional Farm Animal Conference
>>       October 9, in Ames and October 10, in West Des Moines, Iowa
>> 
>>FARM ANIMALS
>>What is Their Future in American Agriculture?
>
>Very strong in animal production!!!

Shouldn't that be "reproduction". Production implies factories..... :-)
Murder is involved here, but you left that out.......

>>PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AGENDA:
>>  Friday Evening, October 9 - Ames
>>  7:30 - 9:30 "Meat on the Menu: At What Cost?" - T. Colin Campbell
>>               and Jeremy Rifkin
>
>Where is this at, I live in Ames and want to attend.

Just get in touch with the Ames group.  I am sure they'll welcome you there.

 
>>  8:45 - 9:45 "Beyond Beef" - Jeremy Rifkin
>
>What is beyond beef is, more beef

Hopefully not in the future....but for now, sadly, you are right......

>>  9:45 -10:15 Break
>
>For Hot Dogs?

Sure, why not.  Not Dogs are great.....Soybeans and all that you know....

>> 10:15 -11:00 "A Veterinarian's Perspective of the Health and
>>               Welfare of Farm Animals" - Ned Buyukmihci
>
>Animals on the Farm are well taken care of.

See what the vet has to say first.....

>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
>
>Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
>replace the chemicals.

What exactly are you trying to say?  It doesn't seem to make any sense....

>mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
>Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Rob U, glad to see that the rugrats are back.....

--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-     "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle           -
-      of compassion to embrace all living creatures."                     -
-                           -  Albert Einstein                             -
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: bgunzy@iastate.edu (Robert A Gunzenhauser)
Subject: Re: POLICY STATEMENT; FARM BUREAU
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:26:31 GMT

In article <9208271548.AA28286@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:
>
>POLICY STATEMENT; FARM ASSOCIATION
>
>
>     * The Pa. Farmers' Assn., a branch of the American Farm Bureau
>Federation, has issued a position paper stating that it opposes
>"any effort to provide law enforcement powers to agents of
>societies and associations for the prevention of cruelty to
>animals." The PFA also believes that, "Only those lands that are
>covered with water the entire year should be authorized to be
>regulated as wetlands," and that "regulators should have no
>authority to impose any requirements to create new wetlands for
>wetlands that may he lost through land use." Further, the PFA
>demands that, "Special hunting licenses for bear should be
>eliminated," so that more people can kill more bears; demands that
>farmers be allowed to permit deer hunting on their land at will for
>virtually half of each year; and adds that it opposes any measures
>to restrict trapping and/or captive bird shooting.
> 
> From: Animals Agenda
> 456 Monroe Turnpike
> Monroe, CT 06468
> Issue: 5/92
> 
>Here are some other policies of the American Farm Bureau from their
>1986 policy statements:
> 
> (quote)
> We favor repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended"
> 
>The impending ratification of the U.N. convention on elimination of
>discrimination against women would have an adverse effect on
>women's rights.
> 
>We oppose any federal land use planning
> 
>Domestic livestock grazing permits should not be reduced or
>eliminated as a result of misuse <sic> of public lands by wild
>horses, burros, deer or elk.  Responsibility for trespass and
>compensation should be clearly established."
> 
>The present policy of allowing wildlife to graze, without charge,
>on federal lands threatens state ownership and control of wildlife
>herds... 
> 
>We support... teaching of the 4 basic food groups (meat, milk,
>breads and cereals, and fruits and vegetables.  We oppose <sic>
>anyone dictating which foods should and should not be eaten.
> 
>We recommend the abolishment of the US Dept. of Education, free
>public education for illegal aliens and bussing to achieve racial
>balance.
> 
>We oppose granting the power of eminent domain to the Indian
>Tribes.
> 
>(end quote)
> *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
> * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
> * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
> * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
>--  
>Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!306!12!Amnet.News.Service
>Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
>

Keep in mind that not every farmer belongs to Farm Bureau or believes in it's
polcies.  FB is a waste of time and money, and whose only purpose is to rob
farmers of their freedoms.  They are basically a bunch of radical right wing
republicans.

Bob Gunzenhauser
AST
Iowa State University
bgunzy@iastate.edu
		-NFO, National Farmers Organization-

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:28:02 GMT

In <Bu0rn2.E1K@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Unfortunately, the production of meat in the US involves quite a bit
>more than letting animals simply graze pastures.  According to a paper
>from the WorldWatch Institute, the following raw inputs are required
>to produce 1 kilogram of various US meat products:

	Point to ponder: according to the WorldWatch Institute, the total
deaths from Chernobyl was 73, this in a paper written by a Mr. Flavin.
In this paper were several other inconsistencies, uncluding some outright
lies, concerning the accident.  This may be partially explained by a lack of
information at the time of publication, but I'd be very leery of the WWI
as a source of scientific data without verifying their sources on my own.

	It's akin to citing Greenpeace on whaling issues, for example.  I
won't make a claim one way or the other with regards to the figures you
posted, but we've seen previously how stats can be manipulated.  It is
best to check the bibliography for yourself before basing a decision on
statistics, no matter who compiled them.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 08:03:32 GMT

In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
rl> stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
rl> courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
rl> human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
rl> confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
rl> in confrontations with humans?  

From article <21643@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, by jsemrad@ems.cdc.com (Joe Semrad):
js> Projecting those human qualities on to the deer, eh Russell? 

What makes you think that fear and courage are uniquely human 
qualities?  

js> Is the deer "stupid" or "courageous" if stays put in a 
js> confrontation with a wolf and dies anyways?  
js> 
js> The obvious answer to your question is that if the deer 
js> stays put for a human it might get shot.  Of course, for any 
js> number of reasons, it may not.  If the deer is shot at and 
js> missed, perhaps it will learn something for next time.  If a 
js> deer stays put for a wolf it may die, or it may not.  

Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
being targeted and missed.
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:07:06 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

[strawman deleted]
>From article <_qwyjgj@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
>jve> What are you talking about, Russell?  I never said anything like 
>jve> this.  I said that it would be ethically acceptable to the aliens 
>jve> to hunt humans, and that what Russell Lawrence or I thought 
>jve> didn't really matter, since the aliens would be in control.  
>jve> Please stop putting words in my mouth.  
>
>Please explain why being in control would make an action ethically
>acceptable or unacceptable.   Portuguese slavetraders controlled
>the ivory coast in the 17th century.  Did this make the kidnapping,
>rape, and enslavement of east african blacks ethically acceptable?

Read my lips, Russell.  There are *no* absolute ethics.  Hunting
humans would be ethical to the aliens.  Does that make them right to
do so?  You don't seem to think so; I have no opinion.


>If it would help clarify your views, please feel free to point 
>out that the mere belief that an action is good or bad doesn't 
>make it so.  

Please don't argue my side, Russell.  But if it helps to clear things
up for you, then yes, you are right that your belief that something is
wrong does not make it so.


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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:03:03 GMT

From article <1992Aug27.152729.19321@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
kb> It's true.  One of the wolves favorite tricks is to chase a 
kb> single, but perfectly healthy deer onto a patch of ice where it 
kb> becomes easy prey.  The wolves have better footing on ice due to 
kb> five relatively sharp claws on each paw versus two relatively 
kb> dull hoof tips on each leg of the deer.  The deer are pretty 
kb> clumsy on ice, believe it or not.  They can't make sharp cuts 
kb> since the hooves offer no "side bite" to dig in for better 
kb> traction.  I learned this by watching National Geographic 
kb> programs.  

It's true that hooved mammals may be incapacitated, not only on 
ice, but on crusted, windblown snow as well.  And it's also true 
that wolves will often attempt to drive vulnerable deer onto such 
terrain.  However, wolf-prey experts like Farley Mowat have pointed 
out that healthy prey animals will typically stand their ground rather 
than allow themselves to be driven into compromising positions.  

It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
in confrontations with humans?  

-- 
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: Game Management Policies
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:09:31 GMT


In article <Btyt6t.IoF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> It seems to me that it might be helpful for both of us if someone 
rl> would coin some new terms to distinguish between hunters who 
rl> genuinely hunt, and hunters who set out food in the hope that the 
rl> "game" will find them.

From article <RIGG.92Sep3113204@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Hunters and shooters are the terms I use.

This seems reasonable.  I believe John Van Etten has claimed that
there are 17 million hunters in the United States.  Do you have any
idea how many of these are "hunters" and how many are "shooters"?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:46:42 GMT

"L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
>Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.


viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)replies:

DS>	Let's see, that's 0.5 swans/permit holder.  Not bad, but hardly what
DS>I would call great odds.  How do they taste?

>Each permit received by a non-hunter means one less awarded to a hunter
>and one swan saved.

DS>	Not according to the numbers posted above, it doesn't.  You know,
DS>those permits are issued for a reason, and by failing to allow those who
DS>hunt to actually hunt those swans, you may be doing more damage to the
DS>ecosystem by not hunting them than you would by hunting.  Just something
DS>to think about next time you decide to do this.

	In addition to what Dan is saying (which is true), consider that the
	response of the DNR to a lower than expected harvest of the swans
	would probably be to issue a larger number of permits the following 
	year.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kbrown@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (J. Keith Brown)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Summary: Misinformation again
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:40:51 GMT

In article <kecv9Aq00UhBI3WF5R@andrew.cmu.edu>, lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu (L. Jean Camp) writes:
> 
>  
> IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED!
>  
> Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
> Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.
:  
 
Before everyone puts pen to paper you should be aware that the information 
contained in the article on swan hunting in NC is not totally correct.
Yes, 6,000 permits are issued and yes, the fee is $5.00.  You DO, however,
have to have a valid NC hunting license....you are required to enter this
number on the application form and it is checked.

Now, let's look at the facts that are missing about the swan hunting in
NC.  The species being hunted is the Tundra Swan.  Hunting of these 
animals became legal again a few years ago because of tremendous
OVERPOPULATION.  The habitat is carrying far more swan than it should and,
as a result, the habitat of these animals is suffering great damage.  No, the
swans are not starving due to the many fields of corn that are near
their wintering areas, but they are doing damage to the wetlands they
inhabit.  You see, the swan, when feeding on aquatic plants, uproots the
plant, thus reducing the total amount of underwater foliage available to
ducks and other animals depending on the wetlands.  If the population of 
swans is not managed, the damage to the wetlands will increase....yes, this
is a fact and I suggest you contact the NC Wildlife Division for further info.

I will also add that the regulations on swan hunting are strictly enforced.
As an example, this past year a member of the legislature was fined for
killing a swan and not having his permit with him.  He did have a permit,
but he had left it at home....the fine was upheld.

Lastly, don't confuse the wild Tundra Swan with the swans you see at the
local city park.  These birds are very wary, it not easy to decoy them
into hunting range.  In addition, though they are large, they fly VERY
quickly and take good marksmanship to bring them down.  And yes, swan is
quite tasty.

Mount your campaign to stop the controlled hunting of swans in NC and you 
will be contributing to a much worse situation in the future....the swans
in NC are increasing rapidly in numbers and are already past the natural   
carrying capacity of the area....if the population continues to grow
unchecked, then you will see habitat destruction.

Keith Brown

>  


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 1 Sep 1992 23:04:10 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BtsE4H.CpI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>ml> Kicking tail and running may not be courageous in your view but 
>ml> let's not forget that if that is what a deer has to do to survive 
>ml> it would be wise to do so.  Would it be courageous for a deer to 
>ml> stand it's ground if under attack by a grizzly?  Perhaps.  

>Nope. :-)  There's quite a size differential between wolves and
>grizzlies.  The sort of impact that would send a wolf flying and
>yelping through the air would cause little or no damage to a large 
>bear.

>ml> But, 
>ml> in light of the instinct to survive, it might be viewed as stupid 
>ml> as well.  If so, why would you not expect a deer to be viewed as 
>ml> stupid if it stands it's ground when matched against the human 
>ml> animal that will "win" the encounter nearly every time?  
>ml> Courageous?  Perhaps.  Stupid?  Yes.  

>How is the deer supposed to learn that humans will win such encounters
>every time?


The same freaking way a deer is supposed to learn that it should run from
a grizzly instead of standing it's ground as it does so courageously when
confronted by a single wolf.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan














Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead)
Subject: :Re: NM spotlighting law 
Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:19:38 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

(Stuff deleted)

>Headlights are included in Chapter 17-2-31: It is unlawful for any
>person or one or more of a group of persons together to throw or cast
>the rays of a spotlight or other artificial light into any field,
>pasture, woodland, forest or prarie wherein big game or domestic
>livestock may be, or may be reasonably expected to be, while having in
>his possession or their possession or under control a firearm or other
>implement whereby any big game animal or domestic animal could be
>killed by aid of an artificial light. 

In Ohio, where I live, we have a similar law WRT headlights being
included in the spotlighting prohibition, except that you don't even
have to have a weapon (excuse me... hunting implement; it's not a 
weapon unless you use it for self defense or offensive actions 
against another person, any more than a screwdriver or hammer is) 
in the car.

The law is not used capriciously, though, from what I've heard.  You
won't get stopped if your lights sweep across a field as you go around 
a  curve, for example, but if you see deer, stop, back up, and shine 
them with your headlights you will.

I agree with this interpretation, since a poacher can shine a deer
just as well with his headlights as a spotlight;  I don't agree that 
this should be applied if you have no gun/bow in the car, however.  
In Pa., where I do most of my serious hunting, you can spotlight as long
as you have no deadly ordinance with you, and lots of people spotlight
recreationally, i.e., take the kids out in the evening to count the deer.
I have no problem with this at all.

Ken
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:42:09 GMT

From article <1992Sep4.171400.9514@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> How about if you were a barnyard pig who lived only at all by 
jh> virtue of the fact that humans allowed your pig ancestors to 
jh> breed so they could raise, kill and eat you.  Which would you 
jh> prefer: having lived and been eaten, or not having existed at 
jh> all?  

I've heard this same argument applied to fertilized human eggs
whose mothers were thirteen year old girls from the poorest of
all neighborhoods.  It's far too speculative for me.

jh> Second question;  can you imagine the death of a deer, or any 
jh> other animal including humans, in which fear and pain does not 
jh> enter into the death experience?  

Of course.  We both agree that a quick death may be a "good death",
but this wouldn't necessarily mean that we're not depriving animals
by choosing death on their behalf... especially when our choices
are motivated by self-serving ends rather than our concerns for the
animal's own existence.

-- 
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: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:51:57 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
rl> explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
rl> being targeted and missed.

From article <1992Aug31.192939.9104@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> The noise scares the hell out of them and they don't come back.  
ja> They are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.  

I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
be smart to be afraid of thunder?

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