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
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:12:08 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>JSVE writes:
>> >>  But I was there to see the
>> >>show.  And the PETA reps (claiming that they represent 500,000 members
>
>You may have misheard this.  From what I recall, PETA claims a total
>worldwide membership of 500,000, not a New York state membership of
>that magnitude.

I'm quite sure the young lady was confused (hence my double smiley
below) although she was quite adamant about it when the DEC official
questioned her on it. :-)

>> >>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
>
>I read "starving" where you've written it, but did anyone at the
>meeting mention that starving is occurring now or expected to occur
>in the very near future.

The DEC people were trying very hard to make us aware that the
starving was occuring now, since the moose are protected (no hunting)
in the park where they are.

>> 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,
>
>Are they?  (Note: I don't know.  I'm looking for valid information here).

The only info I can give is the hearsay from DEC people at the
meeting.  This issue was not addressed in the Draft EIS.  It may be in
the full-blown EIS, but I don't have a copy.  It's not in my
documentation.

[stuff deleted]
>If you could fill me in on some of the history here, I would appreciate
>it.  I do know that the NY DEC started its wildlife restoration program
>in 1976 with "nice innocuous birds" not likely to trigger any public
>controversy, like cougars and timber wolves which are planned for
>later.

The DEC is still denying that they have already released about a dozen
timber wolves.  I heard somebody up in the Adirondacks even took
pictures of them doing it.  Probably just a rumour... :-)

>Since I associate the modern animal rights movement with a time frame
>more in the eighties, those bird projects would seem to predate the rise
>to prominence of the AR movement.  Those "carloads" of supporters you
>describe may have been simply environmentally conscious citizens and
>birdlovers, rather than true-blue AR types.

Point taken.

[stuff deleted]
>As I say, it's not clear to me that the "you folks" here are in reality
>the same folks as those numbered among the "carloads" mentioned above. 
>However, there is no excuse for the incivil namecalling to which you
>were subjected.  But as you can see from the posts of some new
>participants in this newsgroup, your side is not the only one to be
>targeted in this way.  As I've said before, true AR believers are also
>believers in human rights and would treat humans with the same respect
>which they themselves would want to receive. 

We both know there is a lot of anger over the issue of animal rights.
Let's hope people will learn more tolerance in the future.

>> 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.
>
>Did anyone really say, "Let them starve" where they are now?  

Oddly enough, yes.  Two people who were together in my discussion
section, and seemed a bit frustrated since *all* the hunters were in
that group and we dominated it, came out and said that they would
rather see the moose starve than get moved (something about it being
more natural...).  I include the other AR folk in the same ranks,
since they all voiced the opinion to leave the moose where they are in
Vermont, although they didn't come out and say "let them starve."
Actions speak louder than words.

>John, you posted two other messages last Saturday, which should still be
>here but aren't (I don't know why; usually they're good for a week) - so
>I can't answer point-by-point unless you have copies that you can email. 

Sorry, Bob, they've long since dissappeared from over here, too, and I
have no space to archive such things.  No big deal, I know I've missed
many a followup in my time.  I can't remember saying anything all that
important anyway. :-)

>But one point you mentioned again was the famous petition directed
>against your local duck farmer.  It's very nice that you signed that
>petition, but I'm curious about your reasoning, given some of the other
>positions you've taken:
>
>    1.	The Niemoller factor - Why wouldn't the duck farmer fall into
>	this type of exemption for you?

Because the duck farmer is being cruel to these ducks for "no good
reason."  I wouldn't have a problem with him raising his ducks and
killing them for food, but when this guy force feeds them just to
enlarge their livers and ties bands around their necks to keep the
food down, he has stepped over some line, somewhere, and is being too
cruel, by my definition.  These ducks are in pain.  It violates a
basic right which the animals have (my opinion, lots of folks have
mileage that varies) to be treated humanely while they are alive and
to be killed as humanely as possible (unless there is a legitimate
reason -- as defined by me, of course -- which benefits humans, such
as testing).  In my opinion, people that eat meat, or hunt, or eat
Frank's chickens, or perform experiments to benefit humans, or pound
Big Macs (i.e., the Niemoller factor) are not being "cruel for no good
reason (whatever that means)."

>    2.	How do you justify imposing your wishes on another human who
>	is not doing anything directly against you?

He is violating the "right" of the animal.  You know how I feel about
that.  The main area where we disagree is on the "right to life" and
on the "for no good reason" caveat on the right to not be treated
cruely.  That hasn't changed.


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