HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rigg@valeron.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 16 Nov 92 11:50:32
	<1e8lreINN90o@agate.berkeley.edu>
In-reply-to: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 16 Nov 92 17:30:22 GMT

In article <1e8lreINN90o@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

   >There was an interesting event a few years ago in Madison, Wisconsin,
   >where I lived at the time.  ...  Being
   >in the middle of the city it is not safe to allow normal deer hunting,
   >so the arboretum staff had set up a blind and salt lick to attract the
   >deer to a clearing where they would thin the herd.

   This is not the most humane approach to the problem.  Better
   would be to capture, surgically sterilize, and release the animals
   to control the popoulation.

Do you have any data on the survival rate of this procedure?  I have
read rates up 75% for some similar procedures involving darting deer.

Also, there is still the problem of neighboring deer immigrating to
the arboretum.

   >This had been going on for years, but one year the staff made the
   >mistake of announcing to the public when the deer thinning was
   >scheduled.  

   Why is this a mistake?  Perhaps the public has a
   perspective on the problem that the staff lacks.

"the public" has an accurate perspective.  A few AR folks have a
different perspective and resorted to vandalism.

   >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.

The arboretum is actually a research area for the University of
Wisconsin.  The area does research on plants and trees.  The excess
number of deer were destroying the research area.  But your comment
still stands.  The people of Wisconsin decided that the deer were not
worth the extra money.

tim

   >I can't get away from the thought that it is hard to make a
   >go of it in this world if you don't have big brown eyes.

   A gratuitous, off-the-subject comment.

Not really.  Wisconsin has a program to "repair" lakes.  Basically the
laeks become overwhelmed with species like carp.  So the DNR kills
everything in the lake and restocks it.  There has not been one peep
from AR folks about this program even though it has been reported in
several large newspaper articles.

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: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: animals in research
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:07:37 GMT
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <1992Nov17.220854.16404@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

Martin Hulsey wrote (or at least I _think_ he did...I deleted too much):

   All animals are speciesist
   Humans are animals, therefore,
   Humans are speciesist.

>The problem with this is that it's not a species-specific claim.  You
>could replace "species" with family or pack or other sub-groups or
>cross-groups, and make all the same statements.  You're merely saying
>here that humans tend to give preference to those closest to them. 

	Perhaps, perhaps not.  The real question is this: is the statement
	wrong as presented?  The simple fact that humans may place higher
	or lower priorities on other inter- and intra-species groups in no
	way invalidates the claim that, among other things, humans are
	speciesist.  The logic used does not exclude the other considerations
	you mention.

>Also, there seems to be an inherent contradiction in claims like these,
>if your intention is to cite animal behavior as a justification for
>human behavior.  If non-human animals are so worthy as to serve as
>ethical and behavioral guides for humans, then why is it right for
>humans to kill them for our own purposes?

	Again, the real question is this: why is it NOT right for humans
	to kill other animals for our own purposes, given that other animals
	do exactly that?  The point is that, as animals, we are not exempt
	from the motivations which drive non-human animals...and non-human
	animals kill other species (even humans) regularly for their own
	purposes.

[...]

-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)
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 22:17:56 GMT

In article <1ebdhrINNmb7@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>
>>Merely trying to make a point. Deer are beautiful to look at, fun to watch,
>>great to eat. However, when the population becomes too great and habitat
>>is in danger of irreversible damage, all species in that particular area
>>suffer. At this point, the deer, of which I am personally extremely fond,
>>are vermin. 
>
>Whether they are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
>point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.
>
>> As an aside, I consider human overpopulation no better. There
>>is, in both (all) cases, a moral dilemma. Individual rights versus the 
>>overall quality of life for the population. 
>
>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
>forced sterilization of humans.
>

Interesting comment. Do you consider forced sterilization of humans to 
be humane?  

Jeff Achenbach
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 16 Nov 1992 22:38:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov16.214216.22259@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>In article <1e90vnINNb20@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>>
>>Don't give me any BS about "rights".
>>
>
>Now there's an intelligent statement. Do you think you could engage 
>your brain and spew forth some rational response? 

Jeff, all I'm saying this topic has to do with the reported
mistreatment of deer, and I'm not interested in seeing the discussion
diverted into some vague, philosophical drivel about "rights".  And
I'll point out that your continued attempts to make such diversions
implies you might have little intelligent to add.

>>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.
>
>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...

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
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:01:20 GMT

In <BxzrEt.IM4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 11, 1941 in the
>wake of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.  Would you mind telling us 
>when the US Congress declared war on the people of Vietnam?  [it 
>didn't]  When did the Vietnamese people launch their attack on the 
>US as a precursor to US involvement?  [they didn't]

	I don't believe the law requires an enemy to have been the
recipient of an official declaration of war; look at the Rosenburghs
for an example.  The mere fact that we were fighting them makes the
North Vietnamese and their allies "the enemy," and the law might just
reflect that.  Again, it's hard without a declaration of war, but you
don't expect the captain of the USS New Jersey to be prosecuted for
firing upon howitzers in Lebanon just because there was no declaration
of war, do you?  How about Desert Storm? No declaration there, either.
The law gets rather tricky here, but I've no doubt Jane Fonda showed
behavior that would be considered treasonous by the Constitutional
definition with or without a formal declaration of war.

>Do you agree with the principles of democracy and free speech, 
>Scott?  Or, do you think those principles ought to be curtailed, 
>by means of force, among folks who don't share your peculiar 
>political, economic, and religious ideologies?  

	There's a great difference between protest and treason, Russ.
You should know this.  I suspect you do.  You might define your reasons
in this regard, as others have, for the purpose of clarity.

>I don't need your permission to repost your articles, Scott.  
>However, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me permission to repost 
>some of your email messages...  especially the ones concerning 
>your antipathy for the disadvantaged americans receiving 
>government-subsidized health care.  In my opinion, those messages 
>speak volumes about the real meaning of your "Putting [some 
>privileged] People First" concept.  

	And just why should my tax dollars pay for others to get
subsidized health care?  Your own experience should show that nothing
is for free, and that we collectively pay no matter what.  It is no
more fair that I pay for your dental problems as related in e-mail than
for you to pay for my wisdom tooth extraction coming this Tuesday based
solely on our income levels.  If that were the case, I'd be three thousand
dollars richer because you paid for my hernia surgery a year ago.

	You know better than this, Russ.  "Privileged" means "making
money" to some, and I see no reason to deny them the fruits of their
labors because somebody else can't make it.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: timi@mendel.berkeley.edu ( Tim Ikeda)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Date: 17 Nov 1992 21:12:25 GMT
Organization: blank
NNTP-Posting-Host: mendel.berkeley.edu

->Jeff Achenbach writes:
-> As an aside, I consider human overpopulation no better. There
->is, in both (all) cases, a moral dilemma. Individual rights versus the
->overall quality of life for the population.
>
>Steve Pope replies:
>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
>forced sterilization of humans.

---------------
A disclaimer for the rest of the world:  The opinions expressed by
Steve Pope are his own and in *no* way reflect the opinions of
the University of California at Berkeley or of others associated with
UC Berkeley.
---------------

>Earlier in the post Steve wrote:
>Whether they [the deer] are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
>point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.

I think something is amiss, Steve.

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
(Not representing UCB either.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:03:33 GMT

>Russell Lawrence writes:

>
>From article <mhulsey-181192104357@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.
uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):

>
>superficial credentials that you hold dear.  Where did you get
>the medical degree that now qualifies you to issue decrees from
>the pulpit?  And, how many medical doctors do you know who
>publish truly original research (as opposed to mediocre
>paperwork), in accordance with the kind of schedule that you
>apparently value?
>
>rl> The ivy league institution
>rl> that I occasionally call "alma mater" has, for the past twenty
>rl> years or so, been turning it's back on the cretinous notion that
>rl> a thinker's qualifications can be judged by the sheer number of
>rl> his publications.


True to an extent.  Here at a mediocre non-ivy league institution, the
weight (as in pounds on a scale) of one's publication production is rumored
to be taken into consideration at tenure and promotion time.  However, Russell, 
remember the Star(r) incident at Harvard a few years back?  At any rate, 
Princeton took him.  Please be civil to one another.
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 02:59:31 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Was Vietnam your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for the US to
rl> use her military muscle to "protect" the vietnamese people from 
rl> their desire to control their own political and economic future?

Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Is Afghanistan your home?  If not, was it "patriotic" for
ds> the US to use her military muscle...  etc...?  Works both ways.

rl> I don't understand your point.   Please explain how/why Soviet
rl> intervention in Afghanistan excused US intervention in
rl> Vietnam.  Is it ok for you to rape a woman, if you perceive 
rl> that one of your enemies has also raped a woman?

From article <viking.721867816@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> 	I'm not buying this for a second, Russ -- you simply cannot be
ds> this nieve.  However, the fact remains that international law allows
ds> the supplying of weapons and supplies to foreign governments and
ds> revolutionaries.  See, both can be considered the popular side, and
ds> while the US fought in Vietnam for one side the comunist nations
ds> supplied the VC.  While Soviet troops marched in Afghanistan, we
ds> supplied missiles and weapons to the Mujhadeen rebels.  This is war
ds> by proxy (witness French help in the US Revolutionary war).  The
ds> rape question is hardly relevant, but if one of my enemies raped a
ds> woman I'd be perfectly justified in giving her a handgun and the
ds> training to use it and setting her loose.  *That* is a more
ds> correct analogy of how international law works.

I asked you a couple of questions, Dan: Was Vietnam your home?  
And, if not, was it truly "patriotic" for the US to use her 
military muscle to stiffle vietnamese democracy?  In response, 
you asked me about Afghanistan.  Would you mind explaining 
how/why you consider Afghanistan to be relevant to the 
"patriotic" questions concerning popular support and opposition 
to the US role in Vietnam?  

On the whole, you seem to think that the principle of democracy 
would give you the "right" to determine the economic and 
religious choices of people living on the other side of the 
world.  Is that a fair assessment of your position?  

-- 
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: Clinton/Fonda
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:29:58 GMT


In <BxzrEt.IM4@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 11, 1941 in the
rl> wake of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.  Would you mind telling us 
rl> when the US Congress declared war on the people of Vietnam?  [it 
rl> didn't]  When did the Vietnamese people launch their attack on the 
rl> US as a precursor to US involvement?  [they didn't]

From article <viking.722235680@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I don't believe the law requires an enemy to have been the
ds> recipient of an official declaration of war; look at the Rosenburghs
ds> for an example.  The mere fact that we were fighting them makes the
ds> North Vietnamese and their allies "the enemy," and the law might just
ds> reflect that...

If memory serves, the Rosenbergs signed an agreement designated by 
the Official Secrecy Act (or whatever) and were henceforth given 
access to the government's nuclear secrets.  Jane Fonda, on the 
other hand, was only privy to information that educated people 
around the world already knew, but which many americans were choosing 
to ignore.  

> ...
ds> The law gets rather tricky here, but I've no doubt Jane Fonda showed
ds> behavior that would be considered treasonous by the Constitutional
ds> definition with or without a formal declaration of war.

Again, do your homework.  Had it not been for patriots like Fonda 
and Clinton and Magaziner, our nation would have sunk deeper and 
deeper into the morass.  As it was, however, more and more people 
learned the real facts about the war and made their voices heard.  

rl> I don't need your permission to repost your articles, Scott.  
rl> However, I'd appreciate it if you'd give me permission to repost 
rl> some of your email messages...  especially the ones concerning 
rl> your antipathy for the disadvantaged americans receiving 
rl> government-subsidized health care.  In my opinion, those messages 
rl> speak volumes about the real meaning of your "Putting [some 
rl> privileged] People First" concept.  

ds> And just why should my tax dollars pay for others to get
ds> subsidized health care?  ...

Why should my tax dollars pay for the use of animals in medical
research for the benefit of folks who don't seem to care about their
fellow human beings?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals 
Originator: young@sasquatch
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 13:58:06 GMT

	The following is taken from an article in another news group, but
	has application in t.p.a.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <BxqLJq.Dvv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
  delwiche@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Charles Delwiche) writes:

[...]

There was an interesting event a few years ago in Madison, Wisconsin,
where I lived at the time.  The U.W. arboretum sits in the center of
Madison, several hundred acres of woods surrounded by the city.
Absolutely free of predators, the deer herd grows with abandon, and
the arboretum staff had been accustomed to thinning the herd each
autumn.  Without thinning the herd the arboretum would fairly quickly
be stripped of all undergrowth, and a deer famine would ensue.  Being
in the middle of the city it is not safe to allow normal deer hunting,
so the arboretum staff had set up a blind and salt lick to attract the
deer to a clearing where they would thin the herd.

This had been going on for years, but one year the staff made the
mistake of announcing to the public when the deer thinning was
scheduled.  There was an animal rights outcry, and some time later a
number of the trees in the arboretum's horticultural collection were
cut down in the middle of the night, including one tree valued at ten
thousand dollars.  A note was found pinned to one of the stumps with
words to the effect of "if you kill any more of our deer we'll kill
more of your plants".  The whole incident replayed itself a couple of
years later too.

Now, I can't even begin to express how silly I think this is.  It is
hard for me to even comprehend this sort of thought.  It brings to
mind images of a sort of a holy war between herbivores and the herbs.
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.  I can't get away from the thought that it is hard to make a
go of it in this world if you don't have big brown eyes.

-- 
-------
Charles F. Delwiche			(812) 855-2549
Dept. of Biology, Indiana University
Bloomington, IN 47405


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:51:50 GMT

In <Bxu6zB.y5@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>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?

Actually I prefer to go by Will.  Yes I would consider myself basically an
animal as opposed to a plant, bird, fish or reptile. 

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


Will Christie
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Another interesting bit of "activism"
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1eboimINNoqu@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:13:02 GMT

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

>( Tim Ikeda) writes:
>
>|>Steve Pope replies:
>|>It is no moral dilemma for me, since I also advocate
>|>forced sterilization of humans.
>|
>|>Earlier in the post Steve wrote:
>|>Whether they [the deer] are "beautiful" or "vermin" is besides the
>|>point.  My purpose is to see the situation addressed humanely.
>|
>|I think something is amiss, Steve.
>
>You could elaborate on this comment of yours.
>
>/sp

Steve, while you're waiting for his elaboration, maybe you'd like
to offer comment on the passage reprised below:


In article <1992Nov16.232922.23894@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.a
cs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>According to an article in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper yesterday
>the rat population in (I believe I have the city right) Prague is
>reaching about a 1:1 proportion with the human inhabitants of the
>city.  Because of monetary problems the Czech government has been able
>to spend less money on rat poison in recent years, permitting the rat
>population to soar.  Assuming you lived in Prague, what solution would
>you advocate to humanely solve the rat problem?


(P.S.  I think Tim may have had some problem with the notion of
"forced sterilization" of humans.  Me too.)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals