HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Hunting in the US and Canada
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:40:34 GMT

>>Toby Bradshaw
>>Crows may be shot in most if not all states, and magpies
>>are legal at least here in Washington.  Red-winged blackbirds

>Jackie Burhans
>What is the thinking behind this?

Here's your first mistake, assuming that there was thinking
behind a game law :)

>Are these birds considered to be pests?

Yes.  Not all pests, real or imagined, may be shot legally in
the U.S. [probably saves a lot of congressmen ;) ].  In most
places, agricultural pests may be shot if a special depredation
permit is obtained.  More extreme measures, like spraying of
detergents which leads to hypothermia in wet birds, has been
used to kill grackles and other icterids in farming areas
of the U.S.  Crows, though, are fair game for up to 180
days a year under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and require
no special permits.

>Are they felt to be expendable? 

Like any wildlife hunted in the U.S., their population is deemed
stable under current hunting pressure.  If that's what you
mean by "expendable", then yes.

>or is it just because they
>are so common (ubiquitous, numerous (cf. the common passenger pigeon))?

Lots of common birds are not hunted legally, of course, so ubiquity
isn't the criterion.

>I'm bummed cuz Red-winged blackbirds are a particular favorite of mine.

I'm sure if you offered to pay the Louisiana rice farmer for his/her
crop losses, the RWBs would be spared.  Hunters figured this out
long ago, and some of the best goose and duck hunting in the
U.S. is on land leased from farmers who suddenly don't mind
having a few thousand geese in their cornfields.  It's ironic that
anti-hunting groups will protest a legal sporting hunt, but not
spend a dime to compensate farmers for crop damage to prevent relatively
indiscriminate mass killings by poison, detergents, etc.  It's even
more ironic when the antis, like Andrew Taylor, enjoy sport fishing
(you mean *enjoyed* dragging a helpless trout from the security
of his home in the rushing water, *thrilled* to his fruitless
struggle for freedom with that sharp metal tearing at his
delicate mouth, and *admired* his beauty as he lay suffocating
in the creel...)

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Cooper's sighting in Miss.
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:02:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Sep14.150221.26691
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep14.063613.16513@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> rim@csadfa.cs.adfa.oz.au (Bob McKay) writes:
>toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>
>>For about $100 a day, a Yank can shoot kangaroos in Australia.  No
>>doubt, this is on someone's land where the 'roos are considered
>>a "pest".  Perhaps the recreation is disguised as crop protection
>>to keep it from being legislated out of existence.
>
>I can't be absolutely certain, since hunting is a state rather than federal
>matter, and it's hard to keep track of all the state laws, but I'm pretty
>sure Bill is right. In most states, not only would hunting roos for payment be 
>illegal, but handling any firearm without the relevant licence - which a 
>tourist would have very little hope of getting - is a serious criminal 
>offence. I'm not denying that it may be done, and perhaps advertised in the 
>US, but someone taking the offer up is risking much more than that $100 a 
>day - if caught, you could very easily be talking gaol.

Could be.  I have a friend who was in Australia hunting kangaroos
less than a year ago with these arrangements, but I'm not sure
which state it was in.  He said importing his rifles into Australia
was painless.  Maybe it's OK to shoot roos if you promise not
to enjoy it.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu
From: srh3@Ra.MsState.Edu (Steven R. Hollis)
Subject: owl tapes wanted
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 01:54:46 GMT

     I work at a church that also runs a school.  One of the teachers asked
me (being a zoology major) to organize an owl hunt for the Jr. high group.
Now, if I am in the woods by myself, I can call a GHO and an occasional`
barn owl up, but if those kids hear me do it vocally, they are gonna
want to try, and ***shudder***  just picture every critter for miles 
scootin out.  What are the names and sources for owl tapes
I know at a sporting goods store I can get some used by turkey hunters
but they usually only contain one owl call.  I want different species
Also, for those of you who have been on an owl hunt, correct me if I am wrong.
If I am trying to see many different species, I should try to call the 
smaller ones first, right?  Because the larger calls like the GHO would
scare the little barred and others off.

Thanks
Steve

--
===============================================================================
Steve Hollis--Your friendly neighborhood zoology major
srh3@ra.msstate.edu
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.birds
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Cooper's sighting in Miss.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:08:43 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep14.053715.21064@u.washington.edu>
toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>For about $100 a day, a Yank can shoot kangaroos in Australia.  No
>doubt, this is on someone's land where the 'roos are considered
>a "pest".  Perhaps the recreation is disguised as crop protection
>to keep it from being legislated out of existence.

I doubt this is legal. My understanding is all kangaroo shooters have to
be licensed. Regardless, most kangaroos are shot by professional
roo shooters or farmers. Its is not recreation disguised as crop protection.

Some think it is a comercial industry disguised as crop protection
but that is another debate.

A lot of Australians would be surprised that there are people who
not only enjoy killing kangaroos but would fly all the way to
Australia to do it and pay US$100 per day for the privilege.

Andrew Taylor
From: rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Hunting in the US and Canada
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:44:30 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

All native birds are protected in North America by international
treaties.  Still there are hunting seasons for some species (not
including any passerines, which are the hosts of cowbirds), including
all (?) ducks and geese, some rails, some shorebirds (snipe, Gallinago
gallinago; and woodcock, Scolopax minor), grouse, turkeys, and quail,
and all (?) pigeons and doves.  There are specific hunting seasons;
these vary with the species, and are set by the individual states
and provinces.  There are also bag limits and possession limits.
Attitudes about hunting vary greatly.  Especially in big cities
hunting is often viewed as an archaic and barbaric activity carried
out solely by demented people with repressed sadistic tendencies.  In
rural and northern areas, people see it is a normal activity that is
a form of healthy recreation and well as a way of providing the table
with some good food. Especially in the north hunting may be the only
way obtaining fresh meat on a regular basis.  Indeed, it is the only
way a person could survive in some areas.  I had a student that spent
the summer with Inuit in northern Baffin Island.  There was nothing
but game to eat (seals, ducks, shorebirds, murres--anything that 
moved except for gulls--which was what my student was studying).

One exception, which corrects something I said on the net about this
a while back.  In Ontario (and perhaps some other places) a land owner
can legally kill some birds (crows, Corvus brachyrhynchos; red-wings,
Agelaius phoeniceus; grackles, Quiscalus quiscula, I think; and maybe
some others) on their own land if they have a hunting license.  This
(stupid) law I think is to enable agrarians protect their crops.

Bill, can't farmers shoot Galah's in Oz?  What is the story there?

There are some rare and/or local duck and pigeon species that probably
are never hunted, but my guess is that that is controlled by setting
the season.  E.g., I sure that there is no season for Masked Duck, Oxyura
jamaicensis, or White-crowned Pigeon, Columba leucocephala, to name two.
-- 
Name:     Jim Rising
Mail:     Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:     uunet!attcan!utzoo!rising 
BITNET:   rising@zoo.utoronto.ca
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Cooper's sighting in Miss.
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:37:15 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep13.214646.19428@watson.ibm.com> andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.051043.16380@u.washington.edu>
>toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>>> [ Bill Venables write ]
>>>You mean that in the US it's legal to hunt native birds?  That's amazing.
>>
>>About as amazing as hunting native mammals, like kangaroos, in Oz.
>
>No hunting of native mammals is permitted for recreational purposes
>in Australia. Killing of some species, particularly the large kangaroos,
>is permitted to reduce agricultural damage.

For about $100 a day, a Yank can shoot kangaroos in Australia.  No
doubt, this is on someone's land where the 'roos are considered
a "pest".  Perhaps the recreation is disguised as crop protection
to keep it from being legislated out of existence.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.birds
From: pel@resntl.bhp.com.au (Paul Osborn)
Subject: Re: Birds that are also Mammals
Organization: BHP Research - Newcastle Labs
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:58:43 GMT

In article <183j8pINNo88@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col) writes:
>From: br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col)
>Subject: Re: Birds that are also Mammals
>Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:38:01 GMT


>In a previous article, sandee@Think.COM (Daan Sandee) says:

>>In article <BtytD0.88K@zoo.toronto.edu>, rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes:
>>|> Apparently there is also work in progress to try to study the genes of
>>|> the extinct Elephant Bird of Madagascar.  With new molecular techniques
>>|> using PCR to amplify a the c-sections of mtDNA it has been possible to
>>|> get information on the biochemical relationships of some extinct species
>>|> (e.g. the Quagga)--and maybe the elephant bird will turn out to be
>>|> another bird introgressed with a few mammalian genes!
>>
>>But this research should not be restricted to extinct species ! It might
>>shed light on the ancestry of the Catbird, the Cowbirds, and the Tiger-Heron ;
>>and why stick to Mammalia ? Other classes might be of just as much interest,
>>witness the Snake-Eagle (Circaetus sp.), the Serpent-Eagle (Spilornis sp.),
>>and the Fish-Eagle (Haliaeetus sp.) (boy, those eagles are a mixed bunch).
>>And, looking outside the Vertebrates, what about the curious similarity of
>>Grasshopper Warbler and Grasshopper Sparrow ? and the Common Cicadabird,
>>and the Antwren, and the Gnatwren ? not to mention the Snail Kite ?
>>
>>Daan Sandee                                           sandee@think.com
>>Thinking Machines Corporation
>>Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044
>>

>Let's not forget the Bat Falcon and the Zebra Finch and the several African
>species of tick-birds. And why limit ourselves to the animal kingdom; I'm
>sure we don't want to slight the Wheatears and Bananaquits.

>J. Del Col
>-- 
>Jeff Del Col      *       "I'm never lonely,...living in my heavily      
>A-B College       *   populated solitude, a harum-scarum of infinity        
>Philippi, WV      *   and eternity, and Infinity and Eternity seem to          
>                  *   take a liking to the likes of me." Bohumil Hrabal.       

I wouldn't give a Figbird for any of those !
-------- PAUL R OSBORN, Research Scientist, Sensing Technology --- /\/\ --
                BHP Research - Newcastle Laboratories, Australia  / / /\
Snail   :       P.O. Box 188, Wallsend, NSW 2287                 / / /  \
Tel     :       +61 49 51-0605  Fax : +61 49 50-2126            / / / /\ \
Telex   :       AA 28768                                        \ \/ / / /
Internet:       pel@resntl.bhp.com.au                            \  / / /
----------------------------------------------------------------- \/\/\/ -
Newsgroups: rec.birds
From: rglaeser@sparc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Russ Glaeser)
Subject: Re: Hunting in the US and Canada
Reply-To: rglaeser@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:12:55 GMT

In rec.birds Toby wrote:
>Crows may be shot in most if not all states, and magpies
>are legal at least here in Washington.  Red-winged blackbirds
>are shot legally in Louisiana and are commonly used as bait

>Toby Bradshaw

This never made sense to me.  Why is it legal to kill them but illegal
to trap them?  The only N.American bird I've heard of which can be trapped
legally by anyone without a permit is a Starling.(I think)

Russ Glaeser
rglaeser@uiuc.edu
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Hunting in the US and Canada
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:06:35 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Sep14.194034.4168@u.washington.edu>
toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
>more ironic when the antis, like Andrew Taylor, enjoy sport fishing
>(you mean *enjoyed* dragging a helpless trout ...

I neither enjoy nor take part in any form of fishing. I do enjoy and spend as
much time as I can watching fish and their behaviour.

I'd recommend it to rec.birders. When you've seen all the birds in your
area take a scuba course and meet the fish.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: rec.birds
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Cooper's sighting in Miss.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:10:43 GMT

In article <WVENABLE.92Sep12123032@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au> wvenable@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au (Bill Venables) writes:
>>>>>> "Hollis" == Steven R. Hollis <srh3@Ra.MsState.Edu> writes:
>
>Hollis> I was dove hunting last Saturday, ...
>
>You mean that in the US it's legal to hunt native birds?  That's amazing.

About as amazing as hunting native mammals, like kangaroos, in Oz.

>Here in Australia you are only allowed to shoot a very few species of very
>common ducks, and then only during a restricted hunting season of about 3
>days/year, with a limited bag count per shooter (and even that is very
>controversial).  The only other birds that are hunted are certain
>agricultural pest birds, and then only with a permit.

>I thought America had a declining bird population anyway, due to things
>like cowbird predation.  Is there any move to stop hunting?

Yes.  It has been very effective.  The subversive anti-hunters
have begun "clean farming", "land development", and "urbanization".
Perversely, even non-game species are adversely affected, as are
"non-consumptive" users of wildlife.  But, it is worth it to
get rid of those pesky hunters who are the largest source of
money for wildlife management in the U.S.

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the prosperity of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall
not be infringed."  Do you conclude from this that only voters
may own books?


Newsgroups: rec.birds
From: toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
Subject: Re: Hunting in the US and Canada
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:54:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.161255.6383@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> rglaeser@uiuc.edu writes:
>In rec.birds Toby wrote:
>>Crows may be shot in most if not all states, and magpies
>>are legal at least here in Washington.  Red-winged blackbirds
>>are shot legally in Louisiana and are commonly used as bait
>
>>Toby Bradshaw
>
>This never made sense to me.  Why is it legal to kill them but illegal
>to trap them?  The only N.American bird I've heard of which can be trapped
>legally by anyone without a permit is a Starling.(I think)

There you go again, trying to make sense of game laws :)  House sparrows
(Passer domesticus) and rock doves (Columba livia) are two other birds
with no seasons/limits/means of taking restrictions in most or all U.S.
states.  Most wildlife that can be hunted legally may not be trapped, and
many furbearers that can be trapped legally cannot be hunted.  For
example, it's perfectly legal to trap a nutria in Louisiana, but illegal
to shoot one.  Go figure.  Likewise, it is legal to kill a migratory bird
like a mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), but illegal to keep one alive as
a pet.  WARNING:  ALL LATIN NAMES ARE FROM MEMORY AND MAY BE WRONG. 

Toby Bradshaw
Department of Biochemistry and College of Forest Resources
University of Washington, Seattle
toby@u.washington.edu



Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: simonh@amtfocus.amt.gss.mot.com ()
Subject: Mail Order NAD
Organization: Motorola, Inc. 
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:00:48 GMT

 Does anybody know a reputable mail-order place sells NAD/Nakimichi stuff? 
 Also what's NAD's 1-800 number? 

 Thanx in advance.

  -Simon 

   simonh@amtfocus.amt.gss.mot.com

Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: byrns-j@gamma.corp.mot.com (John Byrns)
Subject: Re: Sony's CD advertising
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:00:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.142107.18531@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.183912.8333@portal.vpharm.com> dap@portal.vpharm.com (David A. Pearlman) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep9.151145.25486@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp 
> >(Bill Vermillion) writes:
> >>
> 
> >>The American music appetite seemed to want a way to put music in their
> >>cars.   The 45 rpm players for the cars never caught on, but they were
> >>available as a factory installed option from Chrysler corporation.
> 
(Stuff Deleted)
> 
> I seem to want to say they introduced this in the 1957 models.
> That was the year that Chrysler introduced tailfins to the
> world, the the motto "Suddenly it's 1960!".  It may have been a
> year or so later.
> 
(More Stuff Deleted)
> 
> Changing a record ever 2-3 minutes was not really conducive to
> safe driving.   Four-track and 8-tracks did not exist. And
> 
(More Stuff Deleted)
> 

I remember these, they came out in 1956. They used a disk about the size of a
45, but ran at 16.67 RPM giving a more reasonable playing time.


Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: pchi@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Eric Chi)
Subject: Recommendations needed for receivers
Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:20:15 GMT

Hi, does anyone have any experience with Yamaha's  lower end receivers,
such as RX-V660 and RX-V850? Are these good choice in their price range?
How do they compare to Onkyo TX-906, TX-SV70 Pro or Pioneer VSX-D601?

Thanks.

Eric.

?
Newsgroups: rec.audio
From: mskogmo@nmsu.edu (SKOGMO)
Subject: Books on Isobarik, bandpass, and PushPull enclosures?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: rec.audio
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:14:03 GMT

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows the titles of booksthat show c
calculations, blueprints, and other technical info for isobarik
enclosures, bandpass enclosures, and push pull loading.  

Thanks in advance.

Matt
mskogmo@dante.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.audio,aus.hi-fi
From: yoda@deathstar.Stanford.EDU (Terry Lee)
Subject: Re: Choosing cassette decks
Keywords: decisions, decisions, *1000
Organization: Residential Computing, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 03:20:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.144533.19076@icd.teradyne.com> eisenhofer@maven.dnet.teradyne.com writes:
>I am thinking about purchasing the NAK Cassette Deck 1.5 (I already
>own a Cassette Deck 2)  The 1.5 seems to go for about $650 to $700
>depending on when and where you shop.  This deck is a three head
>deck and has other little recorder's features such as pitch control.
>My question is, is the extra $300 worth it?  I want this deck to do
>dubbing of live tapes.  Is the 1.5 really that much better than the
>2?

I have a Cassette Deck 2 also so I'm not an expert on the Cassette Deck
1.5 and 1.  But this is what I know.  You can't improve in frequency 
response since the Deck 2 goes from 20 to 20k Hz at 0 db.  Perhaps
having a separate record head can achieve better response at even
higher db levels, but I don't think that's too important.  Perhaps
it can achieve a greater dynamic range, but I doubt it would be
significant either.

So I would tend to say that the Deck 1.5 won't sound significantly better.
Of course you should go and make a recording and listen to them to make a
final judgement.  One problem with that though is that you need both decks
to be properly bias tuned to the tape you're using to make an accurate
judgement.  And with a Nak you can't do that properly by adjusting the
control on the front panel.  There are actually three different adjustments
inside the unit.

This is what I do know.  The advantage of a three head unit is that you can
monitor the recording as you record.  That is the record head records onto
the tape and then a few millimeters later the play head can read what you've
just recorded.  Thus you have more control over the level of the recording.
Also when you do have to use the front panel bias adjust.  It's much easier
since you can monitor a test tone as it's being recorded.

On the cassette deck 1, there is an azimuth adjustment.  This isn't
important if you are playing only tapes that have been recorded on a unit
whose head is perfectly aligned.  However, if you are paying tapes made
by your friends, or commercially recorded tapes even, azimuth adjustment
can be important to align the head to the tape.

So I don't know if it's really worth the extra money.  I certainly wouldn't
get the Deck 1 since I'm not expecting a great recording anyway when I
play other people's tapes. 

You may want to know that Nakamichi is blowing out their entire line.
I don't know if news has reached Boston yet, but House of Music in 
San Francisco has just reduced the Deck 1.5 from $650 (I think) to
$557.  Great Deal!  It's the only reason I've even considered getting one.
Apparently there have been some complaints about the charcoal grey color
of the current line so they are replacing the entire line with a new one
with a black finish.

I might suggest that you wait until DCCs come down in price, although
I should have taken my own advice before spending $800 on my new TunerDeck 1.
Oh well.

Cheers,

Terry