HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:14:14 GMT

In article <1e97smINNckd@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve
Pope) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.214216.22259@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Je
ff Achenbach) writes:
>>
>>Can you cite an example where your humane (surgical sterilization) technique
>>has worked? From the little I've heard, survival rates are quite low for
>>deer that have been handled even for relocation.
>
>I hadn't heard this.  It works for other species, even other
>ungulates, but I don't know about deer specifically.  If
>this maneuver is infeasible for deer than you may have a point.
>My guess it's expensive rather than infeasible.  All
>sorts of wildlife is captured, studied, and released by
>scientists...

According to media reports here in Columbus, where relocation was
considered for a city part whose deer population density had reached
the point where the herd was becoming diseased and starving, about
50% will die during a relocation effort.  And you're right, it's
also expensive.

>In any case, even if the survival rate isn't perfect, it's
>a heluva lot better thatn the survival rate when you
>go out and shoot them all.
>
>>  You didn't bother to answer my questions about other less cute and
>>cuddly pests.
>
>Because these questions are a flippant attempt to sidetrack the
>discussion.
>
>Steve


Steve,  I don't understand why Jeff's question about other "less cute
and cuddly pests" is one which you do not want to address.  Discussions
here are always sidetracked, issues are rarely resolved... we're just
involved in an exchange of ideas.

I'd be interested in your reaction to the following situation which
occurred in Columbus.  Ground Hogs (called Wood Chucks by some) were
inhabiting in ever growing numbers the fenced in grounds of the city
airport.  They were wandering onto runway areas.  There have been cases
of plane crashes caused by contact of the Ground Hogs with landing or
taking-off planes.  A number of solutions were explored, including the
idea of sucking the hogs out of their burrows into a big truck and then
driving the truck to a rural area to deposit the live unharmed animals.
The problem with this scenario was that no place within the county or
immediate area wanted the animals and the expensive procedure would have
to be repeated on a regular basis as new populations moved into the highly
desireable airport fields.  Let's face it, this idea was rejected because
of cost.  The solution was to have a trained marksperson shoot the hogs.
What would you do to handle this problem if you were the airport manager?
What would you have advocated as a solution if you lived in this city during
the controversy?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Posting fan mail fragments
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:10:08 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're claiming that someone threw red paint on your mother's fur 
rl> jacket, but then again, you've also claimed in the past that one 
rl> of my coworkers, Linda Guidry, is a non-existent character that I 
rl> personally invented.   Are you a credible person, Todd?
> 
rl> Did your mother report this event to the police?  If so, when and
rl> where?

From article <1992Nov17.154529.8668@refrig.dixie.com>, by todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.):
th> Anyway, in case you don't recall, or wasn't paying attention, I 
th> did some checking, and spoke with a Linda Guidry.  Such a person 
th> does exist.  My claim rested that you had ghost-written the 
th> messages.  A type of forgery, but not pure forgery.  

Can you tell the difference between verifiable facts and your own 
fantasies?

th> Anyway, in case you wanna check, Chicago, around November of 
th> 1979, the charge was criminal damage to property, the settlement 
th> (out of court) was for $225.  Have fun, Russell.  Oh, defendent's 
th> name was Thomas.  
th> 
th> If you do check this out, please tell me how it's done.  So far, 
th> arrest records are not open to the public view, as are court 
th> records.  As this one didn't go to court, you'll have to break a 
th> law to check it.  Enjoy.  

Why don't you ask your mom to provide some more information?   So far,
this sounds like another one of your crocks.

-- 
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: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:19:55 GMT

In article <BxvHBs.9nE@ccu.umanitoba.ca> chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie) writes:
>In <1e9e5kINNe18@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov16.231414.23703@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>>I'd be interested in your reaction to the following situation which
>>>occurred in Columbus.  [..]
>>>[ a proposed solution was ] sucking the hogs out of their burrows 
>>>into a big truck and then
>>>driving the truck to a rural area to deposit the live unharmed animals.
>
>>Good plan.
>
>>>The problem with this scenario was that no place within the county or
>>>immediate area wanted the animals 
>
>>No problem.  Do it in the dark of night.  Leave no trace.

After which some really pissed off farmer will poison and shoot them 
anyway.
 
Jeff Achenbach
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Re: Reporting Poachers (was posting mail fragments)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:15:43 GMT

R.A.P. number (report all poaching) in the state of Michigan is:

			     1-800-292-7800

Please use it!
I have a RAP sticker on my truck and one in my office window.  Both
of which are affixed immediately adjacent to my PPF sticker and NRA
sticker, in each case.

swood
-- 
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Bird season in Michigan and pheasant in zones 2 & 3
  Nov. 14   Closing day of Goose season (U.P. of Michigan)
  Nov. 14   Closing day of early Archery Deer season in Michigan
  Nov. 15   Opening day of Rifle Deer season in Michigan (YES!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:44:17 CST
	<1992Oct29.214251.14326@clpd.kodak.com>
	<RIGG.92Nov2092930@osnome.che.wisc.edu>
	<1992Nov13.220531.9159@clpd.kodak.com>
In-reply-to: black@che.serum.kodak.com's message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:05:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.220531.9159@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

   Catching up on old discussions -

   Re: bowhunting

   In article <RIGG.92Oct14102059@osnome.che.wisc.edu> Tim Rigg

   [...Benke description deleted ...]
   > I am not sure what sort of folks Benke knows but I would most
   > certainly give up bowhunting if it took me 2.2 arrows to barely hit a
   > penned goat.

   [similar responses saying the accuracy in Benke's experiment is
    attrocious and completely unrepresentative of bowhunters deleted]

   In response to all three of you:

   1.  I also found it appalling to read of this.  But remember this was
   not hunting; it was research.  That supposedly justifies it.  But
   cruelty is cruelty no matter what higher-minded term it parades under. 
   Sometimes it may be justified, but often it's not. 

This makes no sense to me.  If this was just a study, then its
conclusions are completely worthless due to the flaws in the method.

   2.  The lack of accuracy also surprised me.  Since I never have and
   never will bowhunt, there's no reference point for me.  Even if I were
   to take up archery target shooting (which I admit a fascination for),
   the differences between inanimate versus animate targets are too great
   for me to believe in close parallels. 

But you have argued in the cited post and numerous others that the
results from Benke's studies are typical.  They are not!  It appears
that you are basing many of your opinions on Benke's book.  The most
recent example indicates to me that you are using very incorrent and
biased data.  If Benke's results were typical, I would also favor a
ban on bowhunting.  However, his results are completely inaccurate and
IMHO worthless.

   3.  John Van Etten has mailed me a copy of an article from (I believe) a
   recent DEER AND DEER HUNTING magazine.  The article, written by Dwight
   Schuh admits that high wounding rates are certainly possibly but
   diverges from the Benke position in saying that the problem is
   correctable. ...

No.  Schuh says the problem IS CORRECTED.  Many years ago, bowhunting
was quite different.  Bows were less accurate and other equipment less
forgiving.  Also, people considered a trip a success if they shot a
lot of arrows at deer.  Today, bowhunters only take shots if they
think the shot has a very high probability of success.  In short,
Benke's methods and conclusions are outdated and incorrect.

   Benke disputed this and cited three Wildlife Society
   Bulletin studies to back up his claim.  ...

Please elaborate on what point Benke refutes.

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: research and medicine
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:07:21 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1992Nov22.165547.29817@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>1. How does the non-human animal respond to the treatment. No, science cannot
>   predict this completely, hence the need for the experiment.
>
>2. Whatever the result, how well does it correlate to an experiment
>   done with humans, which, of course, has never been done so far.
>
>You give the answer to [1]. Rosemary Waigh asked question [2].
>
gp>>But, in the vast majority of cases the information gathered from
gp>>animals studies is applicable to humans.
>
>Often times, using voluntary human subjects can give you far faster and
>far more accurate results. Humans can talk to you. And you remove the
>uncertainty in question [2] above, resulting in far faster
>certification of new drugs and treatments. Now with Bill Clinton as
>President, let's hope he repeals the executive order banning use of
>fetal tissue for research.

Let's hope he does repeal the executive order benning the use of fetal
tissue. 
In addition I agree that direct experimentation on humans would lead to
faster and more accurate results.  But, at what cost?  Before a drug is
brought to market one needs to determine a great deal of information.
What are the side effects?
What is the correct dosage?
What is the most effective way to administer the drug?
Is an overdose possible?
What other physiological parameters may alter the drugs efficacy?

These and many other similar questions need to be addressed before the
drug is tested on humans. 
And the most effective means of doing so are using animal models.  
Example:
I was involved with a drug called isoproterinol.  It is a
bronchiodialator developed for people who suffer from asthma.  It worked
wonderfully on dialation of the smooth muscles in the airway.  However,
animal studies revealed is also caused arythmia (abnormal heart beats) and
even heart attacks.  If this drug had gone straight to clinical studies
people health would have been unecessarily risked.  Presently there are
studies involving new administation technics that may sidestep this
sometimes fatal side-effect.  Do you think it is ethical to try these new
technics on humans without retesting them on animals first?  Would you
volunteer for such an experiment?  

I know that I rest easier if a drug I'm taking has been tested in animals
first.  

                                    Greg Popken

-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:33:10 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Humans are animals, Greg. And human rights are a subset of animal 
rl> rights.   

From article <BxsMwB.7EI@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
jc> Out of curiosity (I don't know what transpired before) what are 
jc> the rights that animals give to each other?  What do you mean by 
jc> saying human rights are a subset of animal rights?  

Are you an animal, John?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Robodoc and animal testing
From: kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:50:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Here's an interesting example of animal testing "with a heart". Many of
you have probably heard about Robodoc, the robot that drills the hole
for the femur part of a hip replacement. Robodoc gets 95%+ contact between
the implant and the bone (I think 98% is the correct figure), while a
surgeon going in with a rasp gets ~40% contact. The procedure was tested 
on 30 dogs before it was tried on a human. Here's the interesting bit -- 
the dogs needed hip replacements _anyways_. Does the fact that the
procedure benefited the test animals make a difference to those who 
object to the use of animals in medical experimentation?
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 16 Nov 1992 20:40:23 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

Jeff Achenbach writes:
> Steve Pope writes:

>>>You can't go set up birth control clinics for deer, and there are a
>>>LOT of deer, so the cost of managing the herds is a significant
>>>concern.  
>>
>>The city of Madison should've thought about that cost
>>before installing the arboretum.
>>
>
>So, Steve, are we to refrain from building parks so that animals won't 
>populate them when they're done? Or maybe we should abandon any that wild
>animals find attractive? 

If we build parks that affect animal populations, we should
deal with the effects of this in the most humane way feasible.

>Are you suggesting humans have no right to any
>property (land) that wild animals may find attractive? And that we have no
>right to protect it from them?

Don't give me any BS about "rights".

It happens that deer are attracted to lush, green, watered
areas.  Hence when one is created (e.g. a golf course on 
an otherwise dry hillside), a LOCAL overpopulation of 
deer results.  Even if the area has no overall overpopulation.

I do not consider it acceptable to kill, bludgeon, poison
etc. the deer just because we (a) want to build a recreational
facility and (b) don't want to spend the money to address
the situation humanely.

Steve
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:02:39 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Humans are animals, Greg. And human rights are a subset of animal 
rl> rights.   

William John M. Christie writes:
jc> Out of curiosity (I don't know what transpired before) what are 
jc> the rights that animals give to each other?  What do you mean by 
jc> saying human rights are a subset of animal rights?  

rl> Are you an animal, John?

From article <BxvGAF.9E9@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
jc> Actually I prefer to go by Will.  Yes I would consider myself basically
jc> an animal as opposed to a plant, bird, fish or reptile. 
jc>
jc> Now let's go back to the question, what are the rights that 
jc> animals give each other?  

Your question is too broad to answer comprehensively.  
Nevertheless, I'll give you one example.  The two dogs that live 
with me are animals, and they appear to respect a transient kind 
of "property right" that obliges them to refrain from taking 
objects from each other without a prior invitation.  I've been 
fascinated over the past two months in studying the signs of 
communication that these dogs recognize as an indication that a 
coveted object has been rightfully abandoned, and hence, a 
legitimate target for re-appropriation.  

It seems clear that any animal that lives within a social 
organization must be capable, either through instinct or learned 
behavior, to recognize the rules of conduct that are applicable 
within the society in which they live.  Do such rules constitute 
"rights" as I normally use the term?  Not really.  Nevertheless, 
they do represent a kind of moral order.  

jc> In asking about the subset of animal 
jc> rights I do not understand how the rights that humans have 
jc> established in various political states (as rights given in each 
jc> country vary) can be a subset when I don't see any rights that 
jc> non-human animals afford each other.  In other words the only 
jc> rights apparent are those set-up within certain political 
jc> boundaries for humans.  

Let's not forget that humans are animals.  As much as we'd like
to think that we resemble the gods, the truth of the matter is
that Washoe the Chimp and I are half-brothers on the tree of
animal life, just as you and I are identical twins.  While dogs
and cows and rats may be more distant relatives, they are 
relatives nonetheless.  

The dogs that live with me have emotions, just as I have 
emotions, and they apparently have a kind of analytical skill 
(albeit non-verbal perhaps) that permits them to solve problems 
in their head, just as I solve problems in my head.  My 
observations of them have reconfirmed, over and over again, the 
notion that the mental differences between my four legged friends 
and by two legged friends are a matter of degree, rather than a 
matter of kind.  

-- 
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: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:28:06 GMT

From article <mhulsey-171192125101@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> Rosemary, appearances can be deceiving.  You should be aware that 
mh> there are *no* standards or guidelines in force for labeling a 
mh> product "cruelty-free." What usually happens is that unscrupulous 
mh> manufacturers buy formulations or materials that are 
mh> animal-tested elsewhere.  

Avon and Revlon are among the many dozens of companies that no longer 
do animal testing.  Are they "unscrupulous"?  If so, please explain why.

mh> If you watch TV, please note that Paul Mitchell's commercials 
mh> with Mariel Hemingway originally touted his products as 
mh> "cruelty-free," but no longer make this claim.  Why do you 
mh> suppose that they would discontinue this claim?  

I saw a Paul Mitchell advertisement just a few days ago, and it very
definitely used the expression "cruelty-free".  What's the scoop?

-- 
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: Anti-AR movie goers - Please read
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:31:40 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Your own theories don't seem to fit the facts, Dan.  If you're
rl> interested, I'd be happy to recommend some books on the history 
rl> of the vietnamese colonial period and the subsequent years of
rl> revolution.

From article <viking.721893385@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> My own theories are based upon discussions with those who
ds> were there, both from Vietnamese nationals who managed to escape
ds> and soldiers ranging from motor pool specialists to snipers shooting
ds> Chinese advisors in Laos and Cambodia.  These guys don't write many
ds> books, and certainly don't call themselves historians.

Given your prior training and temperament, I'd recommend Neil 
Sheehan's biography of John Paul Vann, one of the first "advisors"
to arrive in Vietnam and one of the last to go home in a box.

Sheehan, Neil.  _A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America
in Vietnam_.  Random House: NY, 1988.  Also, take a look at Karnow,
Stanley. _Vietnam_.  Viking Press: NY, 1983.

rl> Diem's dictatorship passed a number of "Family Laws" that weren't 
rl> popular among the buddhist citizens of his country.  (Bear in 
rl> mind that buddhism was the principle religion among the "common" 
rl> people, whereas roman catholicism was the religion-of-choice among 
rl> the landed aristocrats whose political and economic privilege had 
rl> been threatened by the departure of the french.)   Examples of
rl> Diem's laws: 
rl> 
rl> 1) divorce was banned;
rl> 2) the religious practices of several sects were banned; and
rl> 3) the use of contraceptives was declared a crime, and punishable
rl>    by five years in prison.

ds> Take careful note here, Russell.  You will find many
ds> similarities to current events in the USA.  

Oh really.  Where is divorce banned?  What religious sects are banned?
Where is the use of contraceptives punishable by five years in prison?

ds> Care to join me in a
ds> popular revolution, or do you think that perhaps we would not only
ds> be the minority, but also that these privlidges aren't worth the
ds> bloodshed of a revolution and may be taken care of via other means?

Uh, huh.  Aren't you the guy who's fond of shooting his mouth off about
his freedom to own firearms?  Tell us again how you'd resist "illegal" 
laws banning firearms. 

> ...

rl> You're unfamiliar with the facts, Dan.  

ds> And I suppose you're going to educate me?  On which war, Russ?

Do your homework, Dan.  It's obvious that you don't know much about
Vietnam, yet for some strange reason, you consider yourself qualified
to shoot your mouth off about the "traitors" who opposed american
involvement.

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