HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Chemical Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:50:56
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:

   From article <RIGG.92Sep1131911@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
   tr> There is no doubt that forest management practices and farming can
   tr> cause deer populations to explode by increasing fertility.  However,
   tr> the decision to clearcut much of northern Wisconsin is not made by
   tr> hunters.  It is made by pulp and paper mills.  Similarly, I doubt that
   tr> farmers in the southern part of the state care what hunters want.

   Perhaps.  In a few weeks, I'm going to post some documents which 
   will show that some hunters have sought to influence forest 
   management policies in ways that would, in fact, contribute to 
   overpopulation, and hence, increase the need for greater 
   "harvests".  

You don't have to waste a lot of time on this point.  Everyone who
knows anything about hunting will agree that some hunters have one
goal in mind: more and bigger deer.  Most state wildlife departments
have gone to managing for a normal number of deer with an acceptable
harvest by hunters.  A normal number of deer is defined (by me) as the
number of deer that can exist within an ecosystem without completely
overwhelming the other plants and animals that are in the ecosystem.
An "acceptable" number of deer killed by hunters is defined (by me
again, other folks might have different ideas) as the number needed to
maintain the "normal number" of deer with a reasonable age and sex
distribution. 

Much of Wisconsin meets these criteria while many areas do not.  I can
say that I did my part to achieve these goals by killing 2 small does
last fall (one with my bow and one with my rifle).


I will be the first to admit there is quite a bit of opinion in the
above comments and that this is a splippery slope that I am balanced
on the side of.

For example, I support the many hunting resorts that use some sort of
supplimental feeding to help the deer through the winter.  They use
hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not.  The deer in such
situations have natural, normal lifes and patterns the rest of the
year.

On the other hand, some resorts are just feedlots for deer.  The deer
get fed at scheduled times from feeders dispensing corn and other
things.  I think that shooting deer in such a place is just that:
shooting.  Hunting involves fair chase and shooting a deer at his
computer-programmed feeding time does not involve fair chase.  Other
folks can shoot deer if they want.  Just as some folks can kill cows
for food.  However, I prefer to hunt my deer.

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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 04:04:13 GMT

In <BtxrK7.AnD@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In the original article, I specifically asked whether or not it's
>hypocritical for a man who justifies hunting because of the threat
>of deer starvation to turn around and advocate practices that enhance
>the probability of starvation.  

>Such people do, indeed, exist, although you may not be one of 
>them.  Do you consider their position to be hypocritical?  

	No, but with two caveats.  1) hypocracy demands one make a
moral stand that you really don't believe in.  It is possible the person
in question believes his claim, which may be that death by bullet is
morally neutral, while death by starvation is morally abhorrent.  Thus,
he's not balancing two sides, he's just preventing one.  Naturally, I
suspect there are few people like this, but it is a possibility.

	2) there is a difference between enhancing the probability of
starvation (by modifying habitat, for example) and being capable of
ensuring that starvation so as to hunt ethically.  If we could
control the environment so well as to make a significant impact on
the probability of deer starving based on our actions, I suspect
we'd have larger and fatter herds now.

<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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:50:44 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In <Bu1C2y.JJI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> The data for the WWI paper came from the following sources: 
rl> Cattle-Fax, Inc ("Grain Utilization in the Livestock and Poultry 
rl> Industries", 12/8/89);  the USDA Economic Research Service;  and 
rl> a paper by David Pimentel published in _Science_ ("The Potential 
rl> for Grass-Fed Livestock: Resource Restraints", 2/22/80).

From article <viking.715581630@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> *Two* sources?  That's it?  I can't even write a 200-level
ds> speech without including more sources than that.  Right!  I'm
ds> becoming an academic!  Seriously, I can prove that Washington, D.C.
ds> is the safest place on earth by using only two sources.  I'll have
ds> to look for these next time I'm in the library.

Count 'em again.  While you're counting the secondary sources, be 
sure to include the primary sources listed in the three citations 
above.  I think you'll discover that they're quite extensive.  

ds> I remember a claim of each cow drinking something like thirty
ds> gallons of water per day.  My experience has shown ten or less is more
ds> the correct figure, but if you take all the water used by the garden,
ds> the washing machine, the shower, and the cattle, then divide by the
ds> number of cattle, you can see where your average will be scewed. 

As I recall, we've discussed the amount of water required to produce
a pound of edible meat, but not the amount of water that a cow drinks
every day.   Were you assuming that the irrigation water required to
produce fodder and feed grain should not be counted in the consumption
figures?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 22:49:09 GMT

In <BtsE4H.CpI@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>How hungry would the pack have to be before the individual 
>members would risk serious injury or death?

	Hungry?  All the human pack animal needs is an ego problem
or a desire for a new TV.  Witness Los Angeles for evidence.  I
suggest the group or mob mentality might affect wolves as it does
with the supposedly higher animals like humans, thereby making the
risk of being hurt lessened in the mind of the wolf.

>I suspect there are some cases where running might be the best
>strategy, but on the whole, running is not the best policy in
>defending one's person against wolves or dogs. 

	Of course not -- they're faster than you, and you are the
stronger.  Better to take up a defensive position and fight them off.
Don't try this against bears.

>How is the deer supposed to learn that humans will win such encounters
>every time?

	It doesn't need to, because humans won't win all such encounters.
It needs to have a healthy fear because it's likely the human will win,
just as the bear will win.  Note that neither needs some sort of learning
on the part of the deer, just a fear that's common for creatures low on
the food chain.  If bears were herbivores, wouldn't it make sense for
the deer to learn that they were not harmful, rather than to assume
this is the case and have only witnessing another deer's death as the
method of learning to avoid this danger?

<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: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:01:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

Scott, in and among all of your patently false quotes,
are one or two obviously true ones...

-- Steve

>	 Humanity is the cancer of nature.
>				-Dave Foreman, Earth First!
>
>                                  *   *   *
>
>	 Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.
>				-John Muir, Founder of the Sierra Club
From: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:13:56 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <BtID2B.DJw@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   In article <BtAp7I.I94@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
   rl> True.  And the adjacent cropland will only support so many deer.  When
   rl> the supplies are exhausted, however, fertility will decline as fat
   rl> tissue falls below a certain point.

   From article <1992Aug24.173723.20944@nmsu.edu>, by pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer):
   jp> Refresh my memory -- what is that point, and once it is achieved, what
   jp> is the probability of the deer surviving the winter?  

   In humans, the point appears to be 17% body fat.   Below this point,
   menarche is delayed among young women and amenorrhea becomes more
   likely in older women.  I don't know if the point has been established 
   for deer.

So we are to accept that sufficiently thin deer will become infertile,
without knowing what that point is, or whether it occurs after the
deer is thin enough it's not likely to survive?

   jp> It's my
   jp> understanding that ``emaciated'' is a pretty good description...

   Good description of what, Joe?  The natural purpose of "fat" is to
   provide energy reserves for those times when caloric input is likely
   to decline (ie winter)... and not, as some people apparently believe,
   to puff up one's skin in order to make an individual look more 
   esthetically pleasing.

Description of a sufficiently thin deer, of course.  And I don't quite
see what esthetics has to do with anything...

You're the one claiming that culling is not necessary, as deer
populations are self-regulating without starvation.  Your response to
my post gives no reason at all to believe you.

-Joe.
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.  Was : PETA Activities 
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:45:17 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <Btxn5v.9st@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> From article <Btx4xJ.92C@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> Ah yes!  I knew you'd get around to equating Blacks and animals.  
> cm> Never fails.  How IS David Duke by the way?  
> 
> I'm not equating blacks and animals.  I'm pointing out that 
> existing laws and existing standards of social acceptability are 
> not, in themselves, a valid determinant of ethical goodness or 
> badness.   The fact that Dred Scott was the legal property of
> his owner didn't mean that his enslavement was a "good" thing.

The hell you aren't.  Your entire specious argument is based on accepting the
premise of slaveholders and White supremacists.  You cannot accept PART of the
argument, it's all or nothing.  The two are inextricably bound together.  But
I doubt that bothers you all that much anyway.

> Now please answer my questions:  Would you have agreed with Taney
> that rights ought to be based on existing laws?  Or, would you have 
> agreed with Rousseau that laws ought to be based on philosophical 
> arguments?
> 
> I'm looking forward to a logical, non-circular response.

No, you're looking for a response that countenances the belief that Blacks and
non-human animals are equivalent moral agents.  I refuse to provide one.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
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 14:28:27 GMT

In article <Btv8wx.BGq@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>
>In the case you mentioned previously, you said that deer might walk
>into human encampments where hunting is not allowed, yet be far more
>cautious where hunting is allowed.  You stated that this suggested
>that deer had learned to avoid hunters.
>
>Consider the example I mentioned previously.  Let's suppose you
>have a room that's infested with cockroaches, some of which prefer
>sunlit walls and some of which prefer dark crevasses.  If you kill
>the roaches that prefer light, would it be reasonable for an 
>observer to say that the remaining bugs had "learned" to hide?
>

I think both mechanisms are probably at work. Individual animals can sometimes
be recognized by their tracks, habits, and in the case of bucks, distinctive
antlers. Behavioral changes in response to hunting pressure have been observed.
  Behavior which is learned or inherited and has a high survival value would
certainly be expected to be passed on.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:51:44 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug27.195148.277@ccu.umanitoba.ca> jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:

>Well, if we are going to reopen the voting, then I'll vote for
>Ferrell. Does that make it 7-4? 6-3? Whatever.

>I don't think that Ferrell's cross-postings are a "waste of bandwith."

>I wonder if the same people would be objecting to these "blind postings"
>if they were full of pro-hunting, anti-AR info?

>kster@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy)

Well the fact of the matter is you *don't* see a bunch of pro-hunter propa-
ganda being blindly posted to this forum.  You *do* see a bunch of posts 
which are very one sided and for all we know might just be a bunch of crap
ladden with lies.  The fact that ol Ferrell won't or can't subscribe to 
the group to defend some of the garbage he posts is what is offensive to
me.  I normally just skip his articles anyway unless I want a laugh.  This
group is supposed to be for discussion as I understand it.  Not just a
source of advertising bullsh*t like that of Ferrell's.  

Mike Linan
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:52:43 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.181356.25897@spdc.ti.com> achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
>
>  I just read the abstracts for the papers under the same subject heading.
>Is anyone even a little bit surprised? Mean is mean, and some folks are real
>mean! Aggression will be directed at anyone or anything that is perceived as
>unable to retaliate in kind. I sure hope my tax monies aren't supporting 
>these silly studies of the obvious. 
>

Unfortunately academia is almost entirely composed of studies and
research into the totally unsurprising and obvious. Everyone has to
publish, and there are only so many interesting projects to go around (me?
cynical?). On the other hand, perhaps this research would be of some use
in refuting Chris Morton who was asserting in this very forum that there
was no correlation at all between a willingness to inflict violence of
animals and a willingness to inflict violence on people.

If you want to read about *really* tragically silly research, read about
this primate isolation stuff, where they raise individual baby monkeys
in total isolation (no contact with other monkeys for their whole lives,
and an absolute minimum of contact with humans) and then "discover" that,
surprise surprise!, they grow up to be really crazy monkeys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:30:36 GMT

Paul Roberts writes:

>In article <lbqy_5m@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>>     One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
>>list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
>>disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
>>of their vote, as well. 
>
>I was 16.6% of the pro-Ferrell vote, but I didn't send John a copy
>of my vote. I didn't send a copy to George Bush or to the Sec General
>of the United Nations, either. What has "guts" got to do with it?

Everything.  Note that Bush and the Secretary General didn't ask for
one, so you would have been pretty silly to send it to either of them.
:-)  Note also that my opinion, as expressed above, is just an
opinion.  If you don't like what I have to say (just as when
able-bodied people that park in handicapped zones get miffed when I
tell them what I think of them) you're always welcome to be a tough
guy and put me in a kill file (if you have such things available) so
that you don't have to listen. :-)
     I still find it amusing that people are so scared to openly
express their vote on such an issue.  I guess I just wasn't assuming
this was some kind of kindergarden secret ballot with the special
decoder rings.  But I've a tragic flaw of expecting too much from
people. <sigh>  Interesting to note that Ferrell didn't think it was
any big deal either, since he posted the votes. ;-)


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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: swan hunting
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:50:30 GMT

"L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina
>Department of Natural Resources.  As a result, 3,000 swans were killed.

	Let's see, that's 0.5 swans/permit holder.  Not bad, but hardly what
I would call great odds.  How do they taste?

>Each permit received by a non-hunter means one less awarded to a hunter
>and one swan saved.

	Not according to the numbers posted above, it doesn't.  You know,
those permits are issued for a reason, and by failing to allow those who
hunt to actually hunt those swans, you may be doing more damage to the
ecosystem by not hunting them than you would by hunting.  Just something
to think about next time you decide to do this.

<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. >




Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: picou@convex.com (Michael Picou)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:32:36 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

I like "WILD GAME... Low in fat & 100% natural"



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: What Animal "Rights" People are _Really_ Saying?
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:22:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.204654.13094@pixel.kodak.com> young@serum.kodak.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.173735.4816@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:

[...]

>>As a paragon of clear writing, you are well aware of the ways in which
>>removing a statement from its surrounding context can radically alter
>>the intended meaning - especially when the removal is done selectively
>>by one who is hostile to the views being dissected. 
>
>	Ah.  Do I detect a note of sarcasm here?

Just wanted to clear up any misimpression here:  sarcasm was not intended,
though it's now clear to see how it might be inferred.  The point was to
place on the record a general reminder that lifting provocative statements 
out of context is a very easy way to distort the original meaning and
discredit the original writer.

My guess would be that the poster of these quotes in this newsgroup did
not himself use this technique.  Rather he probably just copied the
quotes verbatim from the Michigan Outdoor magazine.  But I suspect (with
an overwhelmingly strong sense) that, somewhere along the way, the quotes
were lifted out of context with the intention of deceptively
discrediting not only the original writer but also the entire movement
with which that original writer is associated. 

>	On the other hand, the logical conclusion to my line of thought
>	has not yet been discussed because my opponent has not yet gotten
>	beyond the limits of his anthropocentric viewpoint and taken the
>	idea to its logical conclusion.

The only logical conclusion that I can see at this point is that you're
leading up to a contractarian model of rights ...  though I perhaps
haven't comprehended why the non-sentience and non-sapience of the
"cosmos" would rule out the existence of an "authority" that we could
invoke to resolve this perplexing question of who should be holders of
rights.  That authority would be the composite wisdom of reason and
observations applied coherently and consistently as a principle, such
composite wisdom transcending the mind of individuals.

[...]

>	I suggest, however, that further discussion take place under the
>	thread now under way in which this very topic is being debated.

Yes, that's the proper place for it.

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals