HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunters legitimate concern
Date: 22 Jul 1992 19:16:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu




In article <BrKKBn.7LG@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <9v-mmjk@dixie.com>, by refrig@dixie.com (Todd Hedenstrom):
>> I invite you to call Ducks Unlimited, and ask them for last year's financial
>> report.  So far, Ducks has raised over 600 MILLION dollars of which over 
>> 85% has gone to habitat protection and restoration.  How much money has
>> PETA put into the environment?

>I didn't realize that Ducks Unlimited was an organization whose credits
>belong to hunters and hunters alone.   If that's the case, I'll make a 
>note to throw future solicitations from them in the trash can.


Do you feel this is an appropriate move?  Are you willing to stop donating
to an organization that does much good just because it's members are mostly
hunters?  Sounds to me like your political agenda means more to you than 
the welfare of the wildlife Russell.


>Would you please list any other environmental organizations that 
>you consider to be dedicated to the glory of hunters rather than 
>to environmental and animal concerns.  I wouldn't want anyone to 
>misconstrue my donations as an endorsement of hunting.  


Couldn't have that now could we Russell.  Even if your donations are doing
a world of good right along with the millions of hunters.  It's seems it's 
much more important to you to make sure you are not affiliated with hunters
than it is to actually help wildlife.  Even if it were for the common good
of wildlife. 


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: HOE!
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:02:23 GMT



How on Earth!

According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times 6/29/92:
 
A newsletter for teenage vegetarians, How on Earth! (HOE!), recently published
their first issue.  Sponsored by the Vegetarian Education Network (VE-Net),
HOE! is "a new newsletter for and by teens who support 'compassionate,
ecologically sound living.'"
 
"The 12-page debut issue offers an advice column by dietitian Virginia
Messina; news of upcoming events, workshops and programs for young
vegetarians; recipes; guidelines for starting an environmental-awareness
student group; poetry and essays; news of various boycotts; book reviews; and
a philosophical column called 'Mindstretch'..."
 
"How on Earth! is published quarterly by the Vegetarian Education Network.
Subscriptions cost $12 per year ($10 for low-income people), or $20 for two
years.  Send a check to HOE!, c/o VE-Net, P.O. Box 3347, West Chester, PA
19381.  Teens are invited to contribute to the newsletter."
 
"For more information, call (717) 529-8368 (subscriptions cannot be ordered by
phone.)"
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Reply-To: ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 22:57:34 GMT


In a previous article, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) says:

>In article <jecome01.711842559@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>,
>jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) writes:
>> just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
>> in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>> a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>> experimentation?
>
>   Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
>any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
>comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
>this was the case most places.
>
>   What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?
>

I would be greatly surprised if the source of the confusion wasn't some
idiotic "animal rights" propaganda.

Mike
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: HUNT: Omaha's Fontenelle Forest
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 20:06:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.150106.3240@icd.ab.com> kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead) writes:
>>Ed Stasny writes:
>
>>I called the director at Fontenelle and asked about alternatives to
>>hunting.  He said that they could move the deer to another forest, but
>>it would cost a couple thousand dollars (that they don't have to spare)
>>and the mortality rate is high for such moves.  
>
>Just to clarify this;  actually, the cost is a couple of thousand dollars
>PER DEER, not just a couple of thousand total, and from what I have heard
>the mortality rate for such transfer attempts approaches 50%. Couple that
>with the fact that they're having deer overpopulation problems almost
>everywhere, and you have the question of where are ya gonna put them?
>I'm sure the farmers in the Omaha vicinity don't want them turned loose
>on their crops! 
>
>I have heard a few things about birth control for deer, and this could work
>(in some measuer, anyway) in a relatively small area such as a park, possibly, 
>but trapping them is just too expensive and hard on the animals.
>
>
>

Let's not forget the fiasco that occured in Florida several years ago when
a large number of deer became standed on small islands due to high water in
the southern portion of Florida (Everglades I think?). The bioligists were
quick to recommend a special hunt before the deer died of starvation, but
the AR's protested and then volunteered to go in and save the deer by 
"catching" them. I think they saved 2 or 3. Did they really think they could
catch a wild deer and safely relocate it? This is hard enough job for wildlife 
professionals, let alone some card toting AR bambi lovers.  (Here Bambi!!)
The bioligists knew it would be cost prohibitive for them to go in and trap
so they did the right thing. Ask for a special season to thin out the herd.
I recall some (hilarious) video footage of ARA's chasing a small deer in waist
deep water and trying to wrestle it. I believe that hunters were finally
permitted to go in and thin out the herd. True, this is not really hunting
but it saved a number of deer from slowly starving to death. I feel this 
was the best choice, unless the deer had been an endangered species. Then I
would have wanted the bioligists to make an effort to preserve them. The 
usual species of deer can be restocked and flourish as has been proven so
many times over in other areas. 

Keith
 

 


-- 
| Keith M. Boyd  (NCR MCPD Cola.) | Nothing could be finer than huntin' and  |
| 3325 Platt Springs Rd.          |    and fishin' in South Carolina! -Me-   | 
| West Cola., S.C. 29170 | GO GAMECOCKS!   |   keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419  dod#????  | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Re; Texas AR Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:25:37 GMT


Jennifer L. Johnson writes:
jj>. Friday evening, Oct. 2: Debate on "sport" hunting.
jj>   Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pacelle vs. two hunters.
jj>   Tentative hunting spokespersons: rock star/bowhunting
jj>   cult leader, Ted Nugent, and a representative of the
jj>   Lone Star Bowhunters Association.

From article <1992Jul30.140823.8202@icd.ab.com>, by kdw@icd.ab.com (Kenneth D. Whitehead):
kw> Boy, this should be interesting.  These ARFs went out and got Ted 
kw> Nugent to argue for the hunting side.  I wish he'd get 
kw> laryngitis, he's got to be one of the worst spokesmen for hunters 
kw> there is, although that's undoubtedly the reason they invited 
kw> him.  He acts and talks like the bloodthirsty yahoo that they 
kw> always try to portray hunters as ....  :-( 
kw> 
kw> (Ted, on behalf of all bowhunters;  I know you're trying to help, but 
kw> having you serve as our spokesman is like having Marion Barry speak  
kw> about ethics in local government.  Please sit down and shut up!)
kw> 
kw> Oh well, at least the only people in the audience will be committed ARFs 
kw> and their running dogs, so it probably doesn't matter anyway.   
kw> 
kw> I wonder who the two "hunters" debating Ingrid Nutburger and 
kw> Pretty Boy Pacelle are;  I bet *THEY* were well chosen.  I 
kw> imagine they'll be *REAL* articulate spokesmen for the hunting 
kw> side.  (Shit, I wouldn't be surprised to find out they're really 
kw> card-carrying ALF members in hunter drag...) 

Perhaps you could volunteer to present the pro-hunting side of 
the debate so the undecided attendees would have a chance to 
appreciate the fact that all pro-hunters aren't "yahoos".  I 
wonder if the audience will be impressed when you refer to your 
opponents as "Nutburger", "Pretty Boy", and "running dogs".  

kw> Oh well, thanks for letting us all know about this, Jennifer.  
kw>
kw> Hope all you Lone Start hunters take a special interest in this 
kw> conference;  maybe you need to pay them a visit and give these 
kw> people a taste of the kind of "opening day antics" they've been 
kw> subjecting hunters to for years.  

Another interesting idea.  Do you think such a demonstration would
give Ted Nugent a chance to see how hunters who aren't "yahoos"
can present the issues in a rational manner?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:55:49 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Jul21.053749.9571@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.112736.6595@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
> 
>>don't know of any hunters that revel in the kill.  And that, Paul, is the 
>>point that sailed oh so effortlessly over your head.
>>
> 
> Oh John, just when there seems some hope of actually discussing stuff, you
> decide that it's time to start spinkling more abuse about. Guess I was
> naive to think that we could do better than that ...

No.  But when I get seriously annoyed I do get just a tad sarcastic. :-)

It annoys me to see AR folx fixated on the kill I guess.  I regard killing 
an animal for food as a natural, normal, healthy activity.  But then, I'm 
an omnivour with a well developed taste for venison.... :-)

I don't have to hunt for food.  I *want* to.  I think it is somewhat 
hypocritical to eat meat and look down on people who kill their own.  I 
like to eat meat, and I enjoy collecting it myself.  I think it is an added 
extra bonus that I can help reduce the winter kill (by starvation) in the 
process.

-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:13:36 GMT

In <Bs2yEL.CvH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>I'm not sure that I understand your statement.  It's all "just 
>nature", IMHO, including those extinctions wrought by human animals 
>using human-made tools.  After all, we're all part of nature.
>To the extent that we view humans as super-natural entities that 
>are above nature, we'll be inclined to continue making the same 
>mistakes that have brought us to the current brink.  

	If it's all "just nature," what makes the passenger pigeon
any more of a mistake than the dinosaurs?  I'd say we've been given
a great power to help or hinder, and that we should use it wisely.
Your statement seems to imply that whatever we do is OK, and I don't
believe that is what you intended.

>With respect to animals, it seems silly to me when such people 
>invoke the cartesian notion that non-human animals don't have 
>minds (aka souls) as justification for mistreatment and cruelty.  
>Yet, when they realize that a given set of genes are doomed to 
>extinction, they'll express their deepest sorrow and compassion 
>for the species.  Go figure.  

	I guess I just hate to see a potential target removed for
the rest of time, Russ ;-)

<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: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Date: 25 Jul 92 21:03:09 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.225456.10764@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ca566@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael Holloway) writes:
>
>In a previous article, jecome01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Eric Comer) says:
>
>>just wanted to start a conversation on the ethics of using animals
>>in biomedical research.  how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>>a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>>experimentation?
>>
>>
>>	Thanks 
>>		Eric
>>
>
>No, sorry.  Experiments using animals are already regulated six ways from
>Sunday and hoppled even more in every conceivable manner.  The question
>should be rather: "Is there a compromise that can be made between the truth
>and "animal rights" disinformation designed to destroy vital biomedical
>research?"

i.e. Eric says:

"Is there a compromise between <extreme postion A> and <extreme postion B>"

and Mike replies:

 "The question should be:

`Is there a compromise between the truth and the pernicious lies of those who
 disagree with me?'

Mike, I think the first question was better.
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: "A Very Good Opponent."
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:01:38 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

dreamer@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (David Caruso II ~~~) writes:

[quoting someone discussing the turkey's ability to evade predators by
virtue of their excellant vision]

>> think the actual number is about 355 degrees, which makes them a very good
>> opponent on the ground.

>	A "very good opponent" ... wow, if a turkey is a very good opponent,
>what's a not-so-good opponent?  A tree?  How about a barn?  Is hunting barns
>sport?  I guess they have to be alive to be sport.  Some sport.  Outwitting a
>turkey.  Sounds a little too challenging for me.

It most probably is. Have you ever TRIED outwitting a turkey? Oh I see,
you're just sounding off another of your "educated opinions".

>Those turkeys are cunning ones, yes sir.

Cunning enough to outwit their predators and thus survive. Which is all
they need, isn't it?

[lots of HIGHLY relevant questions comparing Einstein to a turkey
deleted]

[sarcasm ON]

What a lot of questions! Well, seeing as you appear to know eveything
about everything - even things of which you have NO experience - why
don't you save everyone the suspense, and give us the answers? You
surely know the answers? Don't you?

[sarcasm OFF]

--Jonathan.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: ANIMAL RESEARCH; MILITARY
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:06:31 GMT


 ANIMAL RESEARCH; MILITARY

     * Military Animal Abuse Probed
 
     Long-awaited hearings on animal abuse in military research
were held April 7 before the House Armed Services Committee
subcommittee on Research and Development.
 
    "Six branches of the U.S. Dept. of Defense conduct experiments
on animals at 58 military facilities, killing more than 500,000
animals a year at a cost to taxpayers in excess of $100 million,"
Michael Budke of In Defense of Animals told the assembled members
of Congress. "A 1986 U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report
found that 84% of DOD experiments involve severe pain or distress
to the animals involved."
 
    In a written brief, former Letterman Army Institute of Research
review committee public representative Jan Polon Novic described
experiments in which animals were seared with lasers, infected with
parasites, bled to death, and subjected to eye surgery without
anesthetic.  "Human concerns about animals or the necessity for the
research almost never entered the picture," she charged, "resulting
in the waste of millions of tax dollars and thousands of animals'
lives annually."
 
     Former Air Force primate researcher Donald Barnes testified
that because peer review of DOD projects is usually "limited to the
narrow scientific confines of the DOD" itself, little new
information is gathered.  At the same time, "redundancy with
civilian research centers is the rule, not the exception."
 
     Video footage of a pig being burned alive in a military
experiment made the top of the April 7 CNN late night television
news.  A coalition of groups assembled by IDA, including The
ANIMALS' AGENDA, meanwhile asked Congress to impose a moratorium on
military research involving animals; to freeze funding of military
animal research; to make public data now classified on "the scope,
nature, and purpose" of military research involving animals; and to
reform oversight of military animal research.
 
     The House subcommittee hearings came as the Army sought
permission to field test a new malaria vaccine on soldiers, even
though it has flunked repeated animal tests.  The vaccine was
developed by Colombian immunologist Manuel Patarroyo, who claims to
have used it successfully on 20,000 volunteers from Colombia,
Venezuela, and Brazil.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 6/92
 
 *  AmNet News Service * BBS 303/223-1297  *
 * P.O. Box 9517 * Ft. Collins, CO * 80525 *
 * N.Y.C. Node 212/724-6826 FIDO 1:278/716 *
 * Denver Node 303/364-2257 FIDO 1:104/536 *
--  
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 25 Jul 92 18:15:44 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 24 Jul 92 20:24:55 GMT

In article <Brwu1K.1Io@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   From article <RIGG.92Jul24101228@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   > Many hunters, including myself, will not kill anything they are not
   > going to eat.  I approve of the killing of varmints such as prairie
   > dogs but I won't do.  I generally don't approve of the killing of
   > predator animals like wolves and lions.

   Would you mind defining the word "varmint"?   Why is it morally ok 
   to kill "varmints", but not ok to kill "non-varmints"?

Varmits are like small deer. :)  They are prey animals without any
predators to keep their population in line.  If wildlife biologist
say that there are too many and some need to be killed, I support
their decision and those that impliment it.  Please note that I would
not blindlysupport such a decision.  If they called it overpopulation
simply to provide more free land to some rancher, I would not support
it. 

tim
--
    ...  Then they came for me,
	   and by that time there was no one
	     left to speak up for me. (Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945)
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Farm Sanctuary
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:15:48 GMT



JOIN US AT THE SANCTUARY!

Volunteers are need for our special SANCTUARY FOR FARM ANIMALS. As
a volunteer-based shelter, we depend on caring, committed people ... people
who also want to do everything possible to help factory farm victims.
Your active participation will litteraly keep our doors open for
needy animals, so please get involved today!  For further information, please
call Farm Sanctuary at 607-583-2225.

FARM ANIMAL CAREGIVER

Our unique Sanctuary cares for hundreds of formerly abused farm animals,
ranginf from chickens to cows.  Volunteers are needed to help maintain
the Sanctuary and care for Sanctuary animals.

The Farm Animal Caregiver Program is a weekly committment.  Caregivers
work a regular 3 hour shift per week.  The shelter is open 7 days a week;
shifts are available from 9 am to 3 pm.


FARM WORK PARTIES

Farm Sanctuary Work Parties are definitely "working parties" and you'll
have a great time for a good cause!  And don't worry if you're not a
farmer, we'll teach you how to be one!  Work parties are held the first
Saturday of every month from 9 am to 4 pm.  Please mark your calendars
now.  May 2   June 6  July 4  August 1  September 5


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Using Laboratory Animals
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:07:02 GMT

            [the deep >>> have been edited to save space]
In article <1992Jul25.203927.24083@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul
Roberts) writes:
>>> how do you feel about the topic?  is there
>>> a compromise that can be made between no experimentation and unregulated
>>> experimentation?
>>
>>   Yes, and it's already in place.  Here at Iowa State University 
>>any experiment using vertebrates has to be approved by a 
>>comittee that checks for cruelty, funding for care etc.  I thought
>>this was the case most places.
>>
>>   What on earth made you think experimentation is unregulated?
>>
>>
> 
>What make you think that he thinks it is unregulated? Unless my newsreader
>skipped some lines, he said "Is there a compromise between <extreme position
>A> and <extreme position B>?".

   Asking if a compromise exists when it is in place already indicates the
poster is unaware of the compromise.  Since "no experimentation" is clearly not
taking place the poster clearly believes something like unregulated
experimentation is taking place.  Since this belief substantially agrees with
voluminous black propaganda, it is highly probable the poster was taken in by
such propaganda and thought that unregulated experimentation was the current
case.  Or was that a rhetorical question on your part :) ?
 
> To which you reply: "what makes you think that <extreme position B> is now
> the case?"

   No, I said "neither case holds why do you think <B>?" with the 
implication that only an idiotic ignoramus would be unaware that <A> 
does not hold.  

> He raised the topic in a very neutral way, and you immediately take it that
> he is a rabid "anti-" - maybe he is, but the message certainly didn't give
you
> grounds to think so.

   Nonsense.  His view of the current state of affairs aluded to in his post 
makes it clear he is under the influence of the animal rights movement.  Also,
the next respondant after myself at this site drew the same conclusion; clearly
is it not unwarrented.  Far from being neutral is was very much a pro-animal
rights post; it uses the same rhetorical technique as

   "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
or
   "Spiderman, threat or menace?"

The question essentially dismisses the possibility that a resonable way of
treating animals is _already in place_ and casts the debate as a stark conflict
between hardened positions, exacctly the view PETA and co. want presented.
 
> Paul

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
net.copout: I'm leaving for a week's vacation today.  E-mail any flames or
relies you think I must see to the above address.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals