HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:28:11 GMT

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>A few weeks ago I posted the following:

>1. How many total species of animals are hunted in the US, and to which ones 
>does the above claim apply?
> 
>2. Within those targeted species, what percentage of the hunting (measured by 
>kills) is done in geographic areas where the claim applies?
> 
>3. If we combine these two criteria and only count kills of species that need 
>culling done in areas where culling is needed, what percentage is this of all 
>hunting kills? 

>Unfortunately, nobody answered any of the questions. This is most 
>disappointing. These questions would seem to be quite fundamental to the 
>claim that the "culling" aspect of hunting is "good" for animals, a claim 
>that has consumed a significant amount of bandwidth on this newsgroup.
>Can we conclude that culling constitutes only a small fraction of hunting 
>kills and hence serves as a weak justification of hunting?

	I believe I sent you e-mail on this request, telling you to ask the
local DNR for the specifics of your question.  Like many hunters, I
realize that I am not qualified to give concrete answers to the above.  If
my e-mail did not reach you, my apoligies.  The only one I can answer is
#3, which is "all of them."  When hunting wild game, the hunting skills 
needed are 100%, just as 100% of a soldiers skills are needed while in
Beruit or Kuwait.

	Your local DNR agent should have the answers you are looking
for, and should prove a helpful person in showing how the DNR
works to help the wildlife along with the humans present in an area.

<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. >
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: AR Ethics and violence
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:42:47 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

It's been deleted from our site, but I believe it was Ken Whitehead who 
posted an article about a deer carcass being poisoned with anti-freeze by AR 
people. I believe the source was a bowhunting magazine. This is certainly 
scary and it's a good thing no one was hurt. 

I have one question about this, though. Did the original article describe any 
of the evidence implicating AR activists? 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:07:23 GMT

>As an example, if one of my neighbors enjoys shooting stray dogs 
>and believes that shooting stray dogs is a good thing, would you 
>consider such actions to be ethically good?  


Poor example. Shooting stray dogs is often justified. They are (or at least
may be in specific instances) a threat to wildlife, livestock, and even 
people. There are not near enough people willing to adopt strays to make 
that a viable option, and I think a bullet more merciful than stuffing them
in a gas chamber. Don't misunderstand, I love dogs. On second thought, let's
just shoot the people who don't care for their dogs (just joking, but barely).

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Dahmerian ethics(!?!). Was Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 02:11:36 GMT

proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:

>Yikes. Suppose the Nazis had won, taken over the world, exterminated all
>the Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Gays, Disabled [note that I capitalise
>all groups, so as not to agonise over who deserves a capital and who
>doesn't] ... would they have been morally fine, too?

	Yup.  Only Nazi's would be left to judge, and if they thought
it morally fine, your views (which have been at room temperature and
feeding worms for a few years) are not included.  Welcome to the Third
Reich.  Check your guns at the door, along with your privacy, your
right to fair trial, your right to free speech, and your picture of the
Kaiser.  Your ticket to hell has been stamped, please wait in aisle 3.
There shall be no whispering among the prisoners.  The penalty is death
by firing squad.

>Looks like we are going to have to go a long way to find a reductio ad
>absurdum here ...

	Not really, just try to balance your wishes with those of society
at large and then determine who needs to have their freedom violated in
the name of morals.  I'll give you a hint on my view: the views of the
many, outside an impersonal court of law, outweigh the views of the few.

<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. >
From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: 16 Aug 92 02:38:43 GMT
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club

vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:

>Paul Roberts writes:

>>I haven't done a careful survey of this, but I have noticed several
>>times now how hunters seem to think that anti-hunters are not "real
>>men" or somesuch ... just before he disappeared into killfile limbo,
>>Mike Linan was speculating about Russell's sexual orientation.

>Paul, I'd think this notion of anti-hunters being wimps would come
>about from the widely publicized actions of groups such as ALF, which
>go around commiting spineless acts of one-sided violence.  Also, I'm
>sure the "bunny-hugger" stereotype contributes to it as well. :-)

John, I think you're missing a minor detail here - Dreamer was the one who
made out that all hunters are 'macho beer-swilling hairy apes', so I guess
by interpolation we can guess that the ARs are the opposite - effeminate,
skinny little 'real-men wannabes'.

I don't know how many of the rest of y'all read the beginning of the story
that Ken Whitehead wrote, but it was meant as a tit-for-tat; the 'Rover'
story and the earlier 'Hunting World' story both painted ALL hunters, and
folks, that's us, in a stereotypical way, so I don't see it all that bad
to show little dreamer what it tastes like.  From here, it doesn't look like
he took it too well - hey dreamer, are you still out there, or did you blow
a gasket this time?

 
-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA and AIDS
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:01:31 GMT

Robert J Unglenieks writes:

>Robert M. Straubinger writes:
>>What is the position of 'the AR movement' on "experimentation on animals to
>>find a cure for AIDS" ?

[lots of stuff deleted]

>And as was said, there is no one answer.  One group I know of is opposed to
>using animals.  Another group says it is ok provided a master plan is enacted
>so duplication is not done.  Another group is opposed to primate research.
>Another group advocates alternate methods......
>
>So which answer are you looking for?
>
>Rob U, there is no one voice speaking in the "movement"

Rob, a PETA representative recently told me that she spoke for 500,000
members in New York State :-) :-) :-) (I just can't put enough smileys
there).  Perhaps you'd like to refresh our memories on PETA's stance
on the issue (I've been told what Ingrid Newkirk supposedly said, but
we'd all prefer to hear it from your side of the fence so it's more
"official").  Or should we not look to PETA as a good source of the
average AR opinion (500,000 is a *lot* of people ;-)?  Why do I get
the feeling it's more a matter of you folk not wanting to come out and
say it, rather than a lack of having a majority opinion?
     Could you at least give us ballpark figures on the relative sizes
of the groups you've mentioned above?  Are the ones that think it's OK
the same size as PETA, or is that you and two of your friends? :-)


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: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:20:33 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Dreamer Stares Down My Barrel
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:09:38 GMT

>In article <1992Aug13.212521.42344@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
>dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.e du (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

>If ever you get over your basic cowardice and foolishly decide
>to challenge me just give me a call.  My number is in the book.
>If would give me something to do besides sit here trying to find
>a way to penetrate into the iota of brain tissue inside the
>sponge that must fill your skull.

>jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) replies:

>I've been hooked up to this network for about 6 months now, and
>this is the first time I've seen offered a challenge to another
>to a physical fight!


Yup. A typical AR type - prone to violence. It's no wonder they
blow experimental labs, etc.
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Dahmerian ethics(!?!).  Was Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:56:52 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

>>
>>Dan Sorenson writes:
>>	Sounds about right to me.  Let's say Jeffrey had a Kill-O-Zap
>>ion blaster with automatic targeting and managed to kill the police
>>who tried to arrest him.  A riot of people who think he's immoral come
>>to arrest him, but he gets them all.  Guess what?  He's morally fine
>>because _he's_ the only one left to judge.  Prior to being caught, he
>>was the only one who knew about it and could judge it.  The police are
>>the muscle society used to enforce its collective morales.  Don't
>>confuse the issue by assumming your morals are always the correct ones.
>>Jeffrey's morals disagree, but they are just a valid.  Sick, but valid.

Yikes. Suppose the Nazis had won, taken over the world, exterminated all
the Jews, Communists, Gypsies, Gays, Disabled [note that I capitalise
all groups, so as not to agonise over who deserves a capital and who
doesn't] ... would they have been morally fine, too?

Looks like we are going to have to go a long way to find a reductio ad
absurdum here ...

Paul
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Question and Explanation.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:19:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.214921.42427@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:
>I pose a question for all those who advocate the right to kill animals
>(hunters):
>						 
>Do you believe it is ethical to kill an animal primarily for its fur?
>

Yes, but the key word is primarily. I would prefer that the entire carcass
be utilized in some way. 

>Please don't be afraid of this question.  Although, if I was pro-hunting, and
>argued as such, I would be.
>

Afraid? Not likely. I trapped muskrats for many years in my youth. The furs
went into coats, gloves, and collars, and the carcasses went to the mink farm.
Dairy farmers appreciated it because of the tremendous damage muskrats did to
their stock tanks and streambanks. It gave me a chance to earn money and learn
something about responsibility. Having to check and reset traps morning and 
evening, rain or shine, healthy or sick will do that. Although I mostly used
killer traps, some sets required legholds and drowning setups were not always
possible. I found the majority of animals were caught just before sunup, so 
by getting there at sunrise, they could be killed quickly and suffer less. I
realize leghold traps are repulsive to ARs. I honestly don't like to inflict
pain and suffering either, but I know of no better way to control populations
of aquatic, nocturnal, burrowing animals. Although I don't do it any more, I
don't object to legal trapping.

>
>My posts are not always literal ... sometimes you have to read between the
>lines.  So, please, don't take me so literally when it is not my intention to
>be literal.  I've read many responses published here that offer critiques of
>what my post says literally, and then proceed to offer a critique of me,
>personally.  This is incorrect thinking.
>

Of course you will be taken literally most of the time. Reading between the
lines is much easier in person. Facial expressions and other nuances which
provide clues to actual meaning don't come through on a computer terminal. 
Also, you are writing to people with very strong feelings about the subject
at hand. Nevertheless, I find personal attacks uncalled for and tend to 
discount them as emotional backlash.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:15:17 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

I wrote:

 > A common claim made by hunters is that, by culling herds to supportable 
>levels, they're actually reducing the suffering and death incurred by the 
>herd as a whole. 
 
I then asked if people had data indicating how frequently this claim could 
indeed be applied. Several people replied, and their answers all seemed to be  
variations on the same basic theme, which I'll paraphrase as follows:

   <I don't know...>

Fair enough, I expected the data to be difficult to find. Nonetheless, it is 
a bit disappointing, given the fervor with which the above claim has been 
advanced on this newsgroup in support of hunting. Nonetheless, can't we make 
some educated guesses? Though I'm not particularly educated on this, but I'll 
make some guesses anyways.

1. Fowl - my guess is that rarely, if ever, is hunting needed to reduce flock 
sizes to avoid starvation due to a lack of predation. Is this a reasonable 
guess? Also, my guess is that birds constitute the single largest target 
group, in terms of total kills. Is this guess any good?
 
2. Large Predators - these species (bear, coyote, wolf, cougar) have no 
natural predators responsible for population control (outside their own 
species), so obviously there's no predation vacuum that needs human filling.

3. Ungulates - there may be some cases where the claim applies to ungulates 
(note, though, Russell Lawrence's contention that even here application of 
this claim is ill-advised). How often it applies, I have no idea.  
 
4. Little critters (that's the technical term, you know) - squirrel, racoons, 
possum, what else? Don't lots of people like to hunt these little beings? Are 
they threatened with starvation due to lack of predation? Is such hunting  
regulated?


  <... but the people who come up with hunting quotas are wildlife experts, 
   and I trust them to come up with the right numbers.> 

Such trust might make sense if the charter of the limit-setters was 
"target the MINIMUM number of kills needed to avoid starvation". 

In fact, I suspect their charter (de facto if not de jure) is closer to  
"target the MAXIMUM number of kills the targetted species can tolerate". 
 
Obviously, there's a big difference between these two numbers.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:22:42 GMT

In article <Bt5B9F.K3w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Aug17.183521.674@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>>>
>>>If wildlife populations could be maintained either naturally without
>>>excessive suffering or with intervention through non-hunting techniques,
>>>what percentage of hunters would voluntarily and willingly forego
>>>hunting entirely?
>> 
>> Populations maintained naturally without excessive suffering?  
>> Dream on!  Have you been watching Bambi again?  Mother Nature is 
>> a cruel, harsh mistress.  The only animal that gives a damn about 
>> another species suffering is man.  Kill or be killed, eat or be 
>> eaten, is nature's way.  
>
>You seem to know quite a bit about nature.
>

Yes, I've spent many years backpacking, reading, hunting, fishing, etc.

>Would you mind explaining the role that adipose tissue plays in 
>regulating mammalian fertility?  What's the minimum level of body 
>fat that a female deer must have in order to ovulate?  
>

No I'm not a biologist. I do know that without an acceptable level, the 
animal will not ovulate. In black bears, the sperm is carried in the female
for months before fertilization even takes place. If the bear doesn't store
enough fat before hibernation, pregnancy does not occur. Of course, this may
result in a year class of animals not being represented in the general 
population. Hopefully the situation would be corrected to ensure some younger
animals in later years.
  Sorry, but I'm not the ignorant bozo you'd apparently hoped for. I have a 
degree in geology, work as a semiconductor process research engineer, build
hot rods and motorcycles, and read most anything I can get my hands on
regarding wildlife. 

>When the population of a herd reaches the maximum sustainable 
>population level, what happens to adipose tissue in females as 
>the caloric intake/capita begins to drop, and, what effect would 
>this have on additional population growth?  

Stop it already. There's a large difference between reading about nature and
getting out and experiencing and taking part in it. I can read a book about 
art, doesn't make me da Vinci.
>
>Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
>diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?
>

Absolutely not. They are opportunistic, and will prey on whatever they can 
get their fangs on. Do you really think they stop and say "Wait a minute!
That's a healthy animal! Let's go find a sick one!"

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:07:52 GMT

In article <34cM02bT1e3G01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>A few weeks ago I posted the following:
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A common claim made by hunters is that, by culling herds to supportable 
>levels, they're actually reducing the suffering and death incurred by the 
>herd as a whole. I have some questions about this claim:
> 
>1. How many total species of animals are hunted in the US, and to which ones 
>does the above claim apply?
> 

  It is most obviously applicable to larger species and predators. For example,
deer live in close proximity to humans and large numbers of winter killed 
carcasses as well as emaciated survivors may be seen. When large predators
become too numerous, they may begin preying on livestock and other domestic
animals. Runins with humans may soon follow. Small game is less visible,
and it's overpopulation possibly has less impact on the habitat.
  If we wait until culling is obviously needed, habitat may be irreparably 
damaged and survivors weakened. Game departments have demonstrated their 
expertise and the effectiveness of hunting as a management tool for most of
the 20th century. It requires long term thinking and commitment. I am not 
an expert, therefore I trust those who are.

>2. Within those targeted species, what percentage of the hunting (measured by 
>kills) is done in geographic areas where the claim applies?
> 

I haven't got any numbers, but most hunters are going to go where the chance
of success is greatest, where population densities are highest. I realize this
does not necessarily equate to overpopulation.

>3. If we combine these two criteria and only count kills of species that need 
>culling done in areas where culling is needed, what percentage is this of all 
>hunting kills? 
> 

Because seasons, bag limits, and areas open to hunting are determined by 
wildlife management professionals, the obvious answer is all of them, at least
in the opinion of the experts.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:51:14 GMT

From article <1992Aug17.183521.674@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>>
>>If wildlife populations could be maintained either naturally without
>>excessive suffering or with intervention through non-hunting techniques,
>>what percentage of hunters would voluntarily and willingly forego
>>hunting entirely?
> 
> Populations maintained naturally without excessive suffering?  
> Dream on!  Have you been watching Bambi again?  Mother Nature is 
> a cruel, harsh mistress.  The only animal that gives a damn about 
> another species suffering is man.  Kill or be killed, eat or be 
> eaten, is nature's way.  

You seem to know quite a bit about nature.

Would you mind explaining the role that adipose tissue plays in 
regulating mammalian fertility?  What's the minimum level of body 
fat that a female deer must have in order to ovulate?  

When the population of a herd reaches the maximum sustainable 
population level, what happens to adipose tissue in females as 
the caloric intake/capita begins to drop, and, what effect would 
this have on additional population growth?  

Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:48:08 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Aug18.134351.21837@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, 
keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd) writes:

> This is a bit like an
> earlier post I made about the "hunters are/arenot macho" thread and stated 
> that there were alot of female hunters. You immediately asked for numbers
> of female hunters. I don't have time to call every state and ask them 
> for the male/female breakdown of hunting licenses sold.  Do you??
 
You must be confusing me with someone else. I asked no such question re. 
female hunters. I didn't even participate in that discussion.

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.