HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:34:56 GMT

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.  Guess I'll have to chalk that one up to a
>combination of youthful vigor, as well as the AR quest for total
>honesty and openness, which Bob Black has so recently tried to
>convince me of. ;-)
>
>
>John

Sorry John, I didn't take your request for copies of the ballots as a
serious one.  It came across as a youthfully vigorous tongue-in-cheek
way for you to harass Ferrell a little - nothing more.  If I had really
thought that you were serious, I would have forwarded a copy to you.  My
apologies if you were offended by not being included.  However, if you
have suspicions that hanky-panky was afoot (which would, I assume, be
the only reason for you to feel a need to audit Ferrell), then I will
try to put your mind at ease by confirming that yes indeed I did vote in
the affirmative, as Ferrell says.  And please note that having Ferrell
post his material, not all of which presents the AR people in a positive
light, is in line with a policy of openness, since it's bringing AR
issues and statements to the attention of an audience containing a
significant proportion of AR critics.  Also I would like to ask if there
is open to you or your sysadmin a technical solution to your problem. 
If you're losing data in t.p.a., then might you also be susceptible to
loss of input data in some important technical areas that could
adversely affect your work efforts? Perhaps this could be a
justification for expanding your capabilities?

I'm off on a short vacation now.  I know I owe replies to you and some
others, which will have to await next week. 

---
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
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:24:49 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


Thanks for the LA Times info! (saves me hours on the microfiche).
Happen to have the Free Press article date as well?
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 07:01:39
In-reply-to: russ@wpg.com's message of Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:55:20 GMT

In article <BtxK49.8zn@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

   Would it be safe for me to presume that you would not be opposed
   to practices that would naturally lower deer fertility, even though
   such practices would lower the available "crop"?

Such as...?

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: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 06:47:20 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It's true that hooved mammals may be incapacitated, not only on 
rl> ice, but on crusted, windblown snow as well.  And it's also true 
rl> that wolves will often attempt to drive vulnerable deer onto such 
rl> terrain.  However, wolf-prey experts like Farley Mowat have pointed 
rl> out that healthy prey animals will typically stand their ground rather 
rl> than allow themselves to be driven into compromising positions.  
rl> 
rl> It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
rl> stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
rl> courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
rl> human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
rl> confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
rl> in confrontations with humans?  

In article <1992Aug28.221345.15367@spdc.ti.com>, achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) writes:
ja> Because he may win in a confrontation with a wolf.  He will most 
ja> likely lose to a hunter.  This is probably learned behavior.  In 
ja> a park with no hunting, a deer may walk right into your camp.  
ja> They don't do that where I hunt.  I'd be glad to take you to both 
ja> areas if you don't believe it.  Different situations call for 
ja> different responses...  

In an area where hunting is allowed, any deer that would have 
walked into a human camp would have been killed at the outset.  
Would you mind explaining the mechanism whereby survivors could 
have learned vicariously from such experiences?  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: powlesla@acs.ucalgary.ca (Jim B. Powlesland)
Subject: Re: Ducks Unlimited fiasco
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:24:02 GMT
Distribution: global
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


> in Article 3662 (15 more) in talk.politics.animals:
>jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:

>You won't get a copy of the environmental assessment: no
>independent review was ever done. DU did have a consulting firm
>do an assessment on its behalf. This internal assessment
>identified 153 negative impacts that would result from the
>project, but DU shelved the report and started building anyway.

>The LA times covered the story a month or two back, but I don't
>think that there has been that much other coverage in the US.

>If you want information on the office complex, contact Prasad
>Gowdar at gowdar@ccu.umanitoba.ca. He'll be able to give you any
>info you need.


I phoned DU Canada's headquarters and talked to a nice fellow
about all of this (I didn't catch his name - the receptionist
transferred the call too quickly). Actually, you are wrong. A two
document summary of the EIA is available to the public (DU is
mailing my copies to me right now). The actual EIA constitutes
about 2 and half feet high of documents and obviously they can't
mail the entire thing to me. The full set is available at the
headquarters if I wish to peruse it though.

A second point. You comment about an "independent" EIA shows your
profound lack of understanding of the EIA process. There is no
such thing as an "independent" EIA. By law, the developing party
is totally responsible for undertaking, paying for, and
submitting an EIA to the government. The government then has the
power to say either OK, OK but, or No.

As for stuff in the national press, besides the Newsweek article,
an article appeared in the LA Times (as you mentioned) and
another appeared on the AP Wire. The AP story dealt with troubles
at DU Inc., the US parent company. The Winnipeg Free Press picked
up the AP stuff, added one sentence concerning the DU Canada
headquarters, and printed it.

The last comment the DU guy said to me basically sums up DU's
position. He said that DU is and always has been in the business
of creating and maintaining wildlife habitat and if there was any
way that this development would negatively effect wildlife, it
simply would not have been built. I agree with him and look
forward to receiving the EIA summaries.
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: SCIENCE
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:27:08 GMT

In article <-270892154242@microlab26.med.upenn.edu> (Jesse M. Goldman) writes:
>
>Simply because I like controversy (it is a university) I'd like opinions
>on the use of animals in medical research.  My personal belief is that
>while no life should be INTENTIONALLY wasted or subject to pain I believe 
>that animal research including death is necessary.  Especially before
>administration to people.  Anyone who feels no animal research is
>acceptible is living in a fantasy world if only because computer-generated
>analysis and test tube experiments would never satisfy the public at large.
>                                 

   Let me start by stating I hunt and I eat meat. I am not against killing 
of other animals, provided it is done quickly and humanely as possible. I
am not against animal research per se. I am opposed to inflicting pain on 
other animals with the justification that it will benefit humans. In this 
respect I am probably very close to the AR philosophy. Inflicting suffering
on one animal to prevent suffering by another has no net effect on the amount
of suffering endured. If you must experiment on live animals (and I believe
it is necessary to achieve some goals) then use human volunteers. If noone 
volunteers, then I would assume humanity in the aggregate does not consider
the goal worthy of the sacrifice. I am less bothered by the idea of a human
agreeing to be a subject and being well informed of the risks involved than
by forcing animals (such as dogs, who are dependent on us for their welfare)
to be subjected to excruciating pain to benefit a project they neither under-
stand nor have a vested interest in. IMO there is no shortage of humans and
medical research to extend life and further increase our numbers results in 
a lower quality of life for all. Organ transplants and other extraordinary
treatments may be exciting for the practitioners and appreciated by the 
recipients, but for society as a whole I view such things as an inefficient
use of limited resources. I would prefer to see these funds diverted to 
something useful, such as population control.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: New meaning for Peta
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:38:04 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is it true that the Boston Cooperative Nurses Study found a
rl> high correlation between beef consumption and breast cancer?

From article <1992Sep3.222914.1891@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
mp> Never herd of this group.

Would you be interested in some pointers to the information?

rl> Is it true that the China Health Project found a high correlation
rl> between meat consumption and heart disease, stroke, cancer, and
rl> diabetes?

mp> I don't care about this pin head eather.

The China Health Project was conducted under the auspices of several
major universities, notably Oxford.  What makes you think that the
researchers were "pin heads"?

James Hoskins writes:
jh> Don't hold your breath waiting for your answer from Cowboy.

Mark Pleis replies:
mp> Don't get a carrot stuck up you but eather.
mp>
mp> I raise Dairy and Beef and make a good living at it.  I will keep 
mp> producing beef and milk as long as I live.  My family eats a lot 
mp> of meat and eggs and the youngest to die was 93.  So if you don't 
mp> like how I make my living thats just to bad.  The farmer will 
mp> always come out on top so don't toy with us.  The reason I don't 
mp> jump back on these postes right away is I have a real job and I 
mp> am a full time student taking AST, Animal Science and Food 
mp> Science classes.  So Russ.  Get a life have an Iowa corn fed feed 
mp> streak.  

If the youngest person to die in your family was 93, how old was
the oldest?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:22:34 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals

As quoted from <Btv8G9.BDB@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):

> As quoted from <BtsFK0.E6H@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
> rl> I'm a strong advocate of personal freedom (including freedom of 
> rl> speech), but I think it's important to distinguish between the 
> rl> personal freedom that we all should have to use our minds and 
> rl> bodies as we see fit, and the "freedom" of property that some of 
> rl> us conveniently advocate when we're seeking to appropriate the 
> rl> minds and bodies of other thinking/feeling individuals.  
> 
> From article <Btut7x.LM3@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
> cm> That's why slavery is illegal and hunting isn't.
> 
> Why is it wrong to hunt retarded humans, but ok to hunt chimps?

Because they're human, but you already knew that.  

PS - You forgot to ask why it's wrong to hunt Blacks but not chimps.  Don't
worry, you'll get the back in stride....



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

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: My dog
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:45:34 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <viking.714801203@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>>> 	If I am to grant rights, or recognize rights, I require that the
>>> being I grant them to be capable of knowing the difference between
>>> exercising them and abusing them, for only then can I prosecute for
>>> the violation of said rights by the individual.  
>> 
>>So, for example, a newborn would be bereft of rights and subject to your 
>>every whim?
>
>	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.  Thus, the newborn has rights, but other rights are

That's a red herring Dan. What about the severly mentally disabled, say
the ones who are never going to recover? They cannot assert their rights,
nor know that they have any. What's more, they are never going to reach
a point where they are so able.

Do they then have no rights? Is it OK for you to ill-treat them in any
conceivable way, if such is your whim?

Obviously not. So clearly, there is no logical requirement that a being
need to be able to understand or assert a right in order to actually have
that right. Society does have in place various mechanisms to protect the
rights of those who can't stand up in court and proclaim them.

But we have been through this before (don't remember if it was with you
though. Might have been Chris Morton).
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:00:44 GMT

In article <Btzo82.4F0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep3.024823.14153@news.iastate.edu>, by mpleis@iastate.edu (Cowboy):
>>>  1:45 - 2:30 "Moving Toward Sustainable Agriculture" - Terry Gips
>> 
>> Sorry people animal production is a key point here you need the waste to 
>> replace the chemicals.
>
>How much fertilizer, herbicide, and fossil fuel is required to produce
>animal manure?
>
>How much manure is produced each year in the US?  And how much of it
>is reused in agriculture?
>

You "AR" people are realy more full of bull shit than your average bull.



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

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:28:13 GMT

In <BtIFr6.E8L@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> How large is the LACS preserve?  How high would a fence have to be
rl> to contain red deer?  What's the cost of such fencing in the UK per
rl> lineal foot?  Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't think US$152,000 
rl> would buy very much.  

From article <viking.714727938@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> 	I have not read below this, but rather thought I'd interject a
ds> point: the cost of fencing in the US is around $1.50/foot, if not less
ds> when you have surplus wire or posts to use.  

Are you referring to simple strands of barbed wire?  The chain link 
fencing that one game resort/preserve employs to restrain large deer
is quite a bit more expensive than $1.50/foot.

ds> In addition, remember
ds> Scotland is rocky, so rocks piled up make a nice fence and only for
ds> the price of labor, which I assume to be $0 for this discussion.  

How many man hours do you think it would take to erect, say, 100
feet of rock fencing high enough to restrain deer?  Why would we
be inclined to calculate the price of labor at $0?   

ds> It also depends on what type of fence you erect.  When noting the 
ds> 4-strand barbed wire fence that kept our cattle in, my British 
ds> relative remarked, "It must take a lot of money to use steel in a 
ds> fence." Don't forget both political, economic, and cultural 
ds> differences in your price comparison.  If I charged minimum wage 
ds> for the hours I spent walking fences in my youth, I'd *OWN* this 
ds> site by now.  

I don't think the barbed wire fences that you're contemplating would
be effective in restraining deer.  Deer would bound over short ones,
and get entangled in high ones.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto)
Subject: Re: Game Management Policies
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:51:34 GMT

In article <BtxL13.93M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <RIGG.92Sep1175056@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
>tr> For example, I support the many hunting resorts that use some sort of
>tr> supplimental feeding to help the deer through the winter.  They use
>tr> hunting to kill the deer that the winter did not.  The deer in such
>tr> situations have natural, normal lifes and patterns the rest of the
>tr> year.

The point that Tim makes here is that deer normally suffer from a lack
of food during the winter.  Supplementary feeding saves them from an
agonizing death from starvation.

>
>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?  

I don't believe for a minute that Tim was attempting to personify
winter in any way.  Tim was refering to "the winter" as an elapsed
period of time in the life of the deer herd.

From what I have read, personification of animals is common in the
Animal Rights movement literature.  It certainly has been in those
postings by Russell which I have seen.  Perhaps this lead to Russell's
interpretation of Tim's "turn of phrase".

Personally, I see the practice of winter feeding and subsequent
hunting as a management practice that works.  I also feel that
hunters who are serious enough about it to pay the $$$ to hunt at
a resort are more likely to kill the animal quickly and effectively.
I find that preferable to the animals starving to death over the
winter.

Mary Otto


Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:44:54 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> When it seemed to fit the image you were hoping to convey, you 
rl> stated that the LACS deer were consuming corn crops on 
rl> neighboring farms, and, if I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned 
rl> that the LACS deer were responsible for deforestation. 

From article <BtJ87s.5xL@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
js> You are not mistaken, you are wrong on both counts.
js> 
js> 1) I said that *surplus* deer caused by continued breeding of the deer
js> on the LACS land are forced to seek new territory and *some* deer (not
js> *the* deer, I have made that quite explicit) stray onto lower and
js> cultivated land. I haven't ever mentioned what the crops might be. (It
js> was you who mentioned corn.)

How were you able to factually distinguish between "the" [your 
emphasis] deer that consumed the crops and "some" [your emphasis] 
deer that did not consume crops?   Would the act of consuming
human crops cause the deer to be branded in some mysterious way?

js> 2) It is the Scottish highland deer, who appear not to know about 
js> your birth control mechanisms, who are causing both permanent 
js> land erosion, and deforestation through pressure of numbers.  It 
js> is the Scottish deer which are insufficiently culled (cf the 
js> culling policies of LACS) which are starving in their thousands, 
js> not the LACS deer.  

Please take the time to read Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility",
_Scientific American_, March, 1988.  I'm looking forward to your
comments.

js> I've suggested that you consult 'Deer'. You can obtain the reports of
js> the Red Deer Commission from HMSO in London.

rl> Have you got an address?

js> Not that I belive you wil write, but here it is.  HMSO, PO Box 
js> 276, London, SW8 5DT.  I can dig out the BDS address, but you 
js> don't need it, just ask your local library to obtain the Journal 
js> through inter-library loans for which you will make a small 
js> nominal charge.  BTW, the BDS is not a hunting organisation, it 
js> exists to promote "the welfare of deer".  

Thanks for the HMSO address.  Would you mind providing me with the
BDS address as well?  [You're dreaming if you think the
Public Library system in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana is going to
dig up the aforementioned books on my behalf.]   What exactly would
I ask for in corresponding with "BDS"?

> ...
rl> Are you in favor of game management policies that would reduce 
rl> overpopulation?  Or, would you favor game management policies that
rl> maintain consistently high "harvests"?

js> Both. They are not mutually exclusive.

If deer starvation is an ethical "bad" that ought to be 
alleviated by hunting, would it not also be "bad" to promote 
policies that increase the threat of starvation in the first 
place?  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals