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, 22 Aug 1992 05:12:49 GMT

Robert Black writes:

[liberally edited to get back to the issues we were discussing]
>In article <dmgyl2g@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>Robert Black writes:

>>So you say, Bob.  I went to a meeting the night before last (perhaps
>>it in part spurred my reply to Steve's rediculous thought that the
>>media labels you folk as fanatics) that was held by the New York State
>>Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) about their recent
>>Draft Environmental Impact Study on re-introducing moose into the
>>Adirondack Mountains.  Quite an interesting event, as it bordered on
>>an AR rally.  Seems the DEC (scared to death about being PC in calling
>>the meeting) sent a disproportionate amount of mail to AR groups
>>instead of hunter or environmental groups.
>
>That would be a switch.  Usually it's been the other way around.  For
>example, a far greater number of hunters than any other group, are on
>the federal government's mailing list to receive questionnaires and 
>position papers on the future of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

I don't understand what you mean here.  Are you saying that we get
more mail than the general population, or just more than other groups
like AR folk?  Remember that there are 17 million of us in America,
vs. 500,000 or so AR folk (don't quote me on that number, but that's
how many some of my AR friends have said there are), so we probably
should get more mail.  Also, don't forget that the 11% excise tax on
our equipment is the single largest source of funding for the DOI, so
we're probably buying the stamps and paying the people to lick them. :-)


>>  But I was there to see the
>>show.  And the PETA reps (claiming that they represent 500,000 members
>>in New York :-) :-), stood up and told us that they were against
>>bringing these moose, which are overpopulated in the park in New
>>England where they are coming from (read starving in Winter), into New
>>York because the DEC predicts that more than 20 years down the road
>>they *may* have to have special hunting in certain areas to control the
>>herd since there are no natural predators (wolves) to control them.
>>But more on this meeting below...
>
>If what you're saying is true and not subjected to a pro-hunting 
>anti-AR filter, then I would not oppose transplanting the moose here.
>
>However, you must forgive AR people if they are somewhat skeptical of
>the hunter motives.

What I said should of course be taken with a (very, very small :-)
grain of salt, but it is true.  The moose are starving where they are,
and hunting will definitely *not* occur for at least a few decades
(not in my lifetime).  Honestly, the hunters and the DEC both merely
want the moose around for biodiversity and just because moose are cool
(for lack of a better way to put it :-).  I truly didn't see the AR
folk as being "skeptical," rather, they were outright rabid in their
anti-hunter hatred.  It was sad.


>  I'll illustrate this with an analogy.  Over the
>years we have had a number of dogs and cats euthanatized (euthanized?). 
>Almost invariably, we have depended on the opinions and evaluations of a
>veterinarian.  If I thought the vet had some other interest than just
>the welfare of the animals or had something to gain by the death or was
>in anyway motivated by other considerations than suffering and quality
>of life, then I would be forced to discount his/her input alot. 
>
>So do you see where I'm coming from? Hunters who perceive animals
>generally as a resource to be harvested or simply as a source of food
>can not be assumed to be totally objective by those who really care
>about the animal and his/her value as an individual.  The skepticism of
>AR people toward hunters on issues like the one you raise is to be
>expected and is very understandable, based on the philosophy expressed
>over and over again by hunters in just about every conceivable forum.

I'll not deny that hunters view animals as a resource.  But you AR
folk should think a little more critically about it.  As we've all so
often said, the world is not black and white, and hunters are very
pro-environment in general.  That is exemplified by this issue.  We
want to bring the moose in just to help the moose (at least at this
point), just as we have supported stocking Bald Eagles, Falcons, and
other non-game species with our money from the Conservation Fund
(license fees and excise taxes) of the DEC.  And you AR folk came out
by the carloads to support the efforts to use our money to do so.  Now
all of a sudden the term "game species" rears its head and you folks
start saying we're a--holes with all these ulterior motives (the DEC
is just stocking them so we can shoot them).  That just doesn't wash.
It's time to supress the blood in your [general] eyes and look at the
big picture.  We're just trying to help the moose.  They are dying
where they are, since the Russell Lawrence Happy Theory Of Self
Regulation doesn't seem to work in the park where they are (in
Vermont, I believe).  And we want to see them in New York, since they
used to be here.


>>>>instead of
>>>>painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  You folk
>>>>would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
>>>>by predators while still alive 
>
>Now you know that in my case at least from postings and email, that I am
>not a proponent of starvation, nor am I irrevocably committed to the
>predator approach.

Point well taken, Bob, and I didn't mean to imply that you were, since
I know full well that you aren't.  Unfortunately, while you have told
me many times that you don't advocate these (and I believe you), the
representatives of the groups here in Albany at the moose meeting all
came off as a bit different.  They were acting on behalf of their
constituents, so I think that can be taken to show the majority AR
opinion.  They said no moose if there *may* have to be hunting.  Let
them stay where they are and starve, or stock wolves as well.


>>than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
>>>>shoot one and feed his or her family.  You folk don't give a damn that
>>>>by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
>>>>source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
>>>>over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
>>>>taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  Imagine what would happen if the
>>>>media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
>>>>want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
>>>>could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, 
>
>Are you assuming that animal experiments are going to cure AIDS?  People
>are dying every day, and in some cases these people are willing to 
>volunteer for experimental procedures and drugs.  Meanwhile, after all
>the money spent, we still don't have an animal model of AIDS, let alone
>one that we KNOW will permit accurate extrapolation of results across
>species.

I'm assuming that animal experiments have a possibility of helping to
cure AIDS.  On this we will always disagree, but I feel they should be
used.  And I don't mind that you feel it is a bad thing; I merely want
you to admit to it, in the sense of simply "putting all the cards on
the table."  That way the lurkers can better evaluate your position.
And yes, I'm being a jacka-- about forcing the issue, but I feel
people should know the truth when evaluating the AR issue.


>>>Be sure and hold your breath while awaiting animal experiments to
>>>deliver humans from these scourges.  :-) ...especially cancer for which
>>>millions of animal lives have been sacrificed for over a hundred years,
>>>during which the cancer rate has risen and during which inadequate
>>>attention has been devoted to prevention. 
>>
>>Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but you seem to be saying that I'm
>>right that you folk don't want animals used to try and cure AIDS and
>>cancer.
>
>I'm saying that I have very little faith in the ability of animal
>experiments to provide a cure for AIDS in a reasonable time frame (if
>ever), especially compared with other approaches like tissue cultures
>and human volunteers, not to mention more emphasis on prevention.  That
>is my view.

And you don't want to see them used.  That's fine, but why are you so
afraid to come out and say it in plain English?  Are you AR folk
afraid you'll get bad press for it, since AIDS is a hot issue right
now?  I'm afraid that's life, just as when hunters have to defend
shooting animals the rare time that a gut shot is made and our actions
look bad.  It's not even that I'm trying to point out Bad Things (tm)
about the AR position.  I merely want the lurkers to realize the full
extent of what you folk are saying, just like hunters admitting that
wounding animals occasionally happens, despite our best efforts to
avoid it.


>And I'm saying that they have had literally centuries of animal
>experiments intended to find a cure for cancer, and yet we have more of
>it than ever.  Millions of animals have been "sacrificed" already.  In
>some cases, the causes of cancer are well known and prevention is a very
>viable alternative.  In other cases we have seen drugs that seemed to
>work on animals, but had no effect or even deadly effects when tried on
>humans, due to species-to-species diferences in areas like metabolism
>patterns and rates.  Again that is my view. 

Pretty much the same comment as above.


>>  The fact that the media rarely notes that (not good
>>headlines, I guess) was my only point -- not that you are bad people
>>for feeling that way (although I'll reserve the right to feel you all
>>are confused or misinformed).
>
>Evidently I'm somewhat out of touch with The Media.  It has not been
>my perception that AR have been elevated to any great plateau.

I think it is indeed seen as PC by the media, and as such they cast
you folk in a very good light, compared to us "assault-rifle"-toting--
Bambi-killers.


[stuff deleted]
>Okay.  Apparently I did misunderstand you here.  It appeared to me
>that you perceived the AR movement as part of some anti-gun conspiracy.
>The AR movement and the gun control movement are distinct.

Quite distinct, I agree fully.  But the media blurs it when they
present their agenda to disarm the people.


>>Aye, there's the rub.  We seem to disagree quite a bit on what we
>>consider to be "the media."  Forgive any sarcasm, but I've always
>>thought "the media" was things like the six o'clock news and the
>>morning newspaper.  You know, *news* the average person reads, not any
>>pro-hunting mags that are not read by a general audience.  Nor any
>>PETA brochures.  These are both propaganda, Bob, and nothing more.
>
>Perhaps.  Is it your contention that this "propaganda" has no (as in
>zero) true informational content?  If not, then why can't all of us
>"intelligent" people :-) who know so much about propaganda, just simply
>filter out the propagandistic components and still learn something?

Both have some level of truth, of course.  And yes we must sift
through it (would you believe me if I told you that I think 75% of
what Wooters writes isn't worth the paper it's on?) -- my main point
was that the target audiences are too narrow for these sources to fit
my definition of "the media."  That's all.


[reams of moose stuff deleted to cut this down some]
>As I stated above, if the facts are as you've stated them, then I
>would certainly not oppose the transfer of moose into the Adirondacks.

I'm curious about what has been said about it among you AR folk.  What
have you heard?  I assume it has been mostly negative.  The DEC is
still accepting letters about it until Sept. 1, if you or any other
New Yorker wants to express an opinion.  The address is:

     Moose Project
     NYS DEC
     Wildlife Resources Center
     Delmar, NY  12054

In the letter, be sure to include your opinion on whether or not you
feel moose should be brought in, whether or not you feel the DEC
should have the authority to regulate hunting if it is needed in the
future (I assume this would be "NO" for you, Bob ;-), and whether or
not you feel the DEC should be able to raise funds through donations
to the project (instead of using the Conservation Fund, etc.).


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"--