HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:30:36 GMT


In article <Btzo82.4F0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> How much fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel is required to produce
rl> animal manure?

From article <1992Sep3.171119.12501@news.iastate.edu>, by bgunzy@iastate.edu (Robert A Gunzenhauser):
rg> Nothing, really.  Just let ol' Bossy graze a pasture.

Unfortunately, the production of meat in the US involves quite a bit
more than letting animals simply graze pastures.  According to a paper
from the WorldWatch Institute, the following raw inputs are required
to produce 1 kilogram of various US meat products:

                              grain             energy
                           (kilograms)  (thousand kilocalories)     

pork                           6.9                30 
beef                           4.8                17 
chicken                        2.8                13 
cheese                         3.0                10
eggs                           2.6                10 

Grasslands are important;  in fact, the shortage of grasslands is
the major reason why the figures above are higher in other countries.
Still, it appears to me that animal agriculture produces 
energy deficits that would be lessened if the resources used to
feed animals were consumed directly by humans.

rg> How much fertilzer, herbicides, and fossil fuel is required to 
rg> produce human manure?  You complain so much about animals using 
rg> enormous amounts of petrochemicals that you seem to forget about 
rg> how much humans use, i.e.  hair spray, plastics, gasoline, 
rg> computers, cars, etc.  

I haven't forgotten about other uses of petrochemicals.  However,
they're not relevant to the discussion.  Closing your eyes won't
make the problem at hand go away, nor would the problem go away
if we simply focus our attention someplace else.   

rl> How much manure is produced each year in the US?  And how much of it
rl> is reused in agriculture?

rg> I would say a lot of it is used again. 

How much of the total US production is used again, Bob?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:30:33
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:21:37 GMT

In article <Btx1w2.3ps@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   Meanwhile, please address my previous question.  If a particular 
   hunter has sought to influence the sort of practices that 
   effectively increase deer fertility while destabilizing the food 
   supply, isn't it hypocritical for the same man to turn around the 
   following winter and cite "overpopulation" as an ethical excuse 
   for hunting?  

Some hunters work for extremely high and unstable populations of deer.
I am not one of those hunters and I do not support such actions.
Creating an artificially high and unstable deer population is
unethical in and of itself.

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: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 31 Aug 92 05:05:18 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <f5Ti02lv1fnN01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.174534.1250@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul 
>Roberts) writes:
>
>>	Parse it again, Ted.  "The being I grant them to be capable" does
>>not infer a particular age at which this realization happens, but it does
>>require that that realization should be very likely to happen at some
>>individual age.
> 
>Cut the "parse it again" crap. You wrote it in the present tense, now you're 
>trying to add in the future. It's fine with me if you want to modify your 
>original statement, but I'd respect you a lot more if you were up front about 
>it.
>
>Ted Robinson
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
>These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.

Just to point out that you are quoting someone else, not me. I think it
might have been John. In which case it's him you don't respect, not me.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: POLICY STATEMENT; FARM BUREAU
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:48:13 GMT


POLICY STATEMENT; FARM ASSOCIATION


     * The Pa. Farmers' Assn., a branch of the American Farm Bureau
Federation, has issued a position paper stating that it opposes
"any effort to provide law enforcement powers to agents of
societies and associations for the prevention of cruelty to
animals." The PFA also believes that, "Only those lands that are
covered with water the entire year should be authorized to be
regulated as wetlands," and that "regulators should have no
authority to impose any requirements to create new wetlands for
wetlands that may he lost through land use." Further, the PFA
demands that, "Special hunting licenses for bear should be
eliminated," so that more people can kill more bears; demands that
farmers be allowed to permit deer hunting on their land at will for
virtually half of each year; and adds that it opposes any measures
to restrict trapping and/or captive bird shooting.
 
 From: Animals Agenda
 456 Monroe Turnpike
 Monroe, CT 06468
 Issue: 5/92
 
Here are some other policies of the American Farm Bureau from their
1986 policy statements:
 
 (quote)
 We favor repeal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended"
 
The impending ratification of the U.N. convention on elimination of
discrimination against women would have an adverse effect on
women's rights.
 
We oppose any federal land use planning
 
Domestic livestock grazing permits should not be reduced or
eliminated as a result of misuse <sic> of public lands by wild
horses, burros, deer or elk.  Responsibility for trespass and
compensation should be clearly established."
 
The present policy of allowing wildlife to graze, without charge,
on federal lands threatens state ownership and control of wildlife
herds... 
 
We support... teaching of the 4 basic food groups (meat, milk,
breads and cereals, and fruits and vegetables.  We oppose <sic>
anyone dictating which foods should and should not be eaten.
 
We recommend the abolishment of the US Dept. of Education, free
public education for illegal aliens and bussing to achieve racial
balance.
 
We oppose granting the power of eminent domain to the Indian
Tribes.
 
(end quote)
 *  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 *
--  
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!306!12!Amnet.News.Service
Internet: Amnet.News.Service@f12.n306.z1.fidonet.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:10:39 GMT

In article <Btwq37.Mwx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Again, let's assume that the caloric intake of the deer 
rl> population (1N) in a given region amounts to 5,000 calories per 
rl> day/individual.  And let's assume that this figure provides 
rl> sufficient energy to meet the daily needs of the deer, plus 
rl> sufficient excess calories to permit the average individual to 
rl> build and maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the 
rl> caloric intake, and hence fatness, if the population were to 
rl> increase to 2N or 4N?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to 
rl> me that the average caloric intake per capita would decline as 
rl> the population steadily increases above 1N.  Do you agree with
rl> me that fatness would decline as the caloric surpluses steadily
rl> diminish? 
rl> 
rl> If estrus/menses cycles cease to function when adipose tissue 
rl> falls below a certain point, say 17% body fat, please explain 
rl> how/why you think the population would continue to "explode"
rl> if/when the available calories/capita are insufficient to maintain 
rl> 17% body fat.  

From article <RIGG.92Sep1123238@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Could you elaborate?  What would the populations be for the next 5 or
tr> 10 years?  

I thought my question was clear enough.  If fertility begins to
rapidly decline as fat content falls below a particular level,
why would fertility remain high when the caloric intake is marginal?

tr> I have never said the population would increase to infinity.  Rather,
tr> it would initially increase quite substantially until the food supply
tr> was severely damaged (ie. _everything_ below 6 feet would be gone) and
tr> then starvation, disease, or a slightly worse than usual winter would
tr> ravage the herd.  The population would drop but the the food supply
tr> would take many years to recover.  The result would be a perpetually
tr> diseased, sickly herd.

You seem to be making the same assumption that another poster made
at the beginning of the thread, namely that deer food is either present
or not-present in the forest... just as human food is either present
or not-present on grocer's shelves.   It seems more likely that food
doesn't simply disappear; rather it gets less and less attractive and
harder and harder to find. 

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 15:27:29 GMT

In article <1cny9pc@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>
>>Do you have any evidence to prove your conjecture that wolves are capable
>>of taking perfectly healthy deer?
>
>Russell, even a coyote pack can take down a healthy deer.  Please
>write to:
>
>     NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation
>     50 Wolf Road
>     Albany, New York  12233-4790
>
>and ask them for a copy of their recent study on coyotes and deer.
>Unless of course you're going to start that familiar "oh, hunters own
>the game departments so that's a bad source" AR bullsh--. ;-)
>
>
>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"--


It's true. One of the wolves favorite tricks is to chase a single, but
perfectly healthy deer onto a patch of ice where it becomes easy prey.
The wolves have better footing on ice due to five relatively sharp claws
on each paw versus two relatively dull hoof tips on each leg of the deer.
The deer are pretty clumsy on ice, believe it or not. They can't make
sharp cuts since the hooves offer no "side bite" to dig in for better
traction. I learned this by watching National Geographic programs.

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 BRAVES!!     | keith.boyd@columbiasc.NCR.COM |
| Vp: 803-791-6419 or 6455    | From uunet: uunet!ncrcom!ncrcae!clodii!keith | 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:46:12 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Why is it wrong to hunt retarded humans, but ok to hunt chimps?

In article <Btx4pn.903@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Because they're human, but you already knew that.  

I already knew that such arguments were fallacious.

From "The Glossary of Logical Terms: Fallacies", _The Encyclopedia
of Philosophy_, McMillen and Company.

   11) begging the question (circular reasoning), an argument 
       that assumes as part of the premises the conclusion that 
       it supposed to be proved. 

I'm going to save this quotation and repost it everytime you tell
us that humans have rights because they're human.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:27:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.195601.22279@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff
 Achenbach) writes:
>

Question addressed to Russell Lawrence:


   If you don't mind, I'm curious as to how much time you've spent in the wild
>studying animals, whether birdwatching or whatever. I get a feeling you have a
>tremendous amount of knowledge from reading, but how about interaction? None
of
 >my business is an ok answer. It doesn't affect the validity of an argument at
>all. I'm just wondering why you seem to think deer are so helpless, dumb, or
>whatever. Apparently I have a higher opinion of their mental powers, perhaps
>too high, I suppose.
>
>Jeff Achenbach
>achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

According to a very interesting e-mail received from Mr. Lawrence a couple of
weeks ago, he grew up in a rural environment and spent extensive time outdoors.
Mr. Lawrence will have to substantiate; my impression from his letter was that
he hunted during this time.  Additionally, he stated that his present 
involvement in outdoor activities, climbing, hiking, and winter excursions is 
extensive, perhaps more so that the "hunting advocates" he finds in the t.p.a. 
forum.

I mention this, first, because Mr. Lawrence is--whether you love or hate
his point of view--an entertaining and gifted writer.  Second, if Mr. Lawrence
can substantiate that he used to hunt it might shed light on his dogged and
determined debating; ie., the reformed smoker/alcoholic syndrome.

Follow-ups to talk.psychoanalysis please.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:11:22
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:15:02 GMT

In article <BtxL13.93M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   I agree with many of the points in this article, but I have one 
   question about a particular point.  You say that some resorts use 
   hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not kill.  Wouldn't 
   it be more straightforward to say that the hunters on these 
   resorts simply kill some deer, without introducing winter as some 
   sort of scary figure?  

Sure.  It is safe to say that on these resorts, hunters kill some
deer.  The deer are probably healthier and perhaps a few more are
around.  The supplimental feedings just help the herd make it through
the winter a bit less stressed so they have a good start in the
spring.

I'd like to note that most often the supplimental feeding is the form
of small plot of planed crops, usually clover.  Below the Mason Dixon,
clover stays green and quite desired all winter.  I do not know what a
northern resort would use so I think it doesn't happen very much.  I
admit this is a bit confusing since the winters are obviously harder
up here.

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: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:47:08
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:16:54 GMT

In article <Btv487.9Mz@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   From article <RIGG.92Aug31102914@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> The author stated that lower levels _can_ prevent fertility.  The
   tr> extremely undernourished and relatively fat-free women of some
   tr> developing countries show that fertility is not prevented.  It is just
   tr> lowered. 

   Please name one of these countries and explain why you think that 
   the relative absence of fat didn't prevent fertility.

The author states that decreased fat decreases fertility.  Where in
the paper does it state that reduced fat prevents fertility?

   tr> The caloric intake was "perfect" for 1N.  The reduced fertility won't
   tr> even start taking effect until 2N or 4N.  So, the population would
   tr> continue to grow at least past that point.

   Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the caloric intake was 
   5,000 calories per day/individual, and let's assume that this figure
   included sufficient excess calories for the individuals to build and
   then maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the caloric intake,
   and hence fatness, if the population were to increase to 2N or 4N?

Please provide your analysis of this situation with documented
calculations and/or explanations.  I am tired of doing your research
for you.

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: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:01:31
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of 31 Aug 92 23:13:52 GMT

In article <BtvF76.D9v@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   From article <RIGG.92Aug31162942@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> Now, "without any further hand-waving and finger-pointing", please
   tr> provide some documented proof that prey animals can regulate their
   tr> poplations.

   Frisch, Rose. "Fatness and Fertility".  _Scientific American_,
   March, 1988.  

This article makes no such claims!  The author simply found that lower
fat levels can reduce fertility.  There is no logical reason to
extrapolate that simple fact to the much more substantial statement
that prey animals can regulate their populations.  

Again, please provide an article that mentions prey animals or find an
example.  Surely, there must be some place on earth where the
constraints you have imposed are satisified.

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: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:23:39 GMT

In article <Btv8MM.BFH@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
>rl> explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
>rl> being targeted and missed.
>
>From article <1992Aug31.192939.9104@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> The noise scares the hell out of them and they don't come back.  
>ja> They are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.  
>
>I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
>be smart to be afraid of thunder?
>

Russell, I've read enough of your writing by now to know you're not stupid.
Neither are deer. I'm beginning to get the feeling you're hiding behind dumb
questions when you think you may be losing an argument.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:33:31 GMT

In article <BtrIHu.7p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Can you see a distinction between industrial polution and 
>rl> hurricanes, or forest fires and nuclear holocaust?  Or, would you 
>rl> say that all of these phenomena are "natural"?  
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>ja> Russell, I'm surprised.  This is not up to standards for you.  
>ja> Surely you're not serious.  On the outside chance you are: Of 
>ja> course not.  
>
>rl> In what sense, then, do you consider human predation (using man-made
>rl> tools) to be a "natural" activity?
>
>From article <1992Aug28.154352.8537@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> If I may answer a question with a question: at what point in 
>ja> history did man's predation become unnatural?  Is any tool 
>ja> unacceptable?  Is a knife, spear, or bow ok, but a gun not?  Keep 
>ja> in mind that chimps have been observed using sticks to extract 
>ja> termites from a mound and (I think) even as weapons.  Should we 
>ja> start a movement against such "unnatural" behavior by chimps?  
>
>If your test of "naturalness" is determined by the longevity of 
>the practice, how long will we need to wait before industrial 
>pollution and nuclear holocaust become "natural" activities?  If 
>another species, apart from mankind, had the capability of engaging 
>in such activities, would their participation permit us to forego 
>the waiting period as the test of "naturalness"?
>
>ja> In all honesty, I consider predation by man to be natural in and 
>ja> of itself and choice of weaponry a separate issue. 
>
>It seems to me that you're using "naturalness" as a screen, of sorts,
>to evade the issues.
>

I guess I've lost track of the question. What issue am I evading? I am sure
you don't really need to ask my opinion of industrial pollution (should be 
minimized, but there is a point of diminishing marginal returns. If people
want to live in an industrial society with all it's modern conveniences, some
pollution will result) I guess I am appalled by wanton damage to the
environment which supports wildlife, but not particularly worried about
individuals. Prey is for eating. Does this help clear things up?

  But it seems to me you have not answered my question. I'll rephrase it. Is 
it "unnatural"  for any species to use tools or just for man? Is it unnatural
for man to kill and eat other animals regardless of whether tools are used?


Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: New meaning for Peta
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:37:42 GMT

I noticed wile I was showing my Dairy cattle at the Iowa State Fair
(got grand champ) I saw a shirt the said:

PETA
People for the eating of tasty animals.

On this Iowa Conference thing I think that the State FFAOfficers should make
a trip to this (Myself Northeast Vice-President)little event and help you
people get your shit straight

Beef Real food for REAL people


-- 
mpleis@iastate.edu     Mark L. Pleis 
Agricultural Systems Technology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals