HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 05:09:39 GMT

jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

>Can you envision a time where public opinion would be so strongly 
>anti-hunting that the notion that hunters have a constitutional
>right to hunt would not be supported?

	Just a note here, but there is no constitutional right to hunt.
The 2nd amendment declares a right to keep and bear arms, not a right
to hunt.  The usage of said arms is to the security of a free state by
means of a militia, which means warfare, not hunting.  There is no such
constitutional right.  However, tradition is a strong force, as is the
idea that the government cannot regulate what you do on your own land
unless it somehow can be taxed, involves interstate commmerce, or
(and this is very subject to determination) promotes the general
welfare.  It is unlikely anti-hunting laws will ever fall under the
last group, as even mandatory seat-belt laws couldn't be done under
this clause, and they are demonstrable in saving lives.  Instead, it
was forced down the state throats by way of extortion via the
witholding of state highway funds.  There are similar methods being
proposed now for mandatory motorcycle and bicycle helmet laws.

>Would you support local citizen ballot initiatives to ban hunting in the
>states, and if such an initiative was passed--say, on the state level--
>would it be upheld in the federal judiciary as constitutional?

	No, for it is useless, and no, as this does not fall under any
government power that I am aware of.  Remember, if it isn't stated
in the Constitution, the government can't do it, period.  The State
constitutions operate under similar laws, and by default those
rights not explicitly stated are left to the People.  The right to
hunt can indeed fall under this category if it's not explicitly
stated as something government has the jurisdiction to control.

	Reasonable controls are normal; libel laws vs free speech is
but one example of how this is done.  In this case, it is very hard
to come up with a reasonable restriction beyond the seasonal and bag
limits currently imposed.
 
>Or, are you for an ethical transformation of the way people think?
>In 50 or 100 years will people just not want to hunt?

	They might.  If this is the case, why the law challenge above?
There's no need for a law if nobody does that particular crime.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: sklautky@vaxa.weeg.uiowa.edu (Stephen Klautky)
Subject: Re: A Universal Ethic?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:21:00 GMT

In article <798e02XX23e301@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>Specifically, I strongly believe in the following ethic:

>   The less pain I inflict, the better.

>For now I'm ... merely trying to determine if the above ethic is
>"universal".


Short answer: no

Longer answer: it depends.

The reason has to do with how it is phrased.  I really can't answer
yes or no and do the question justice.  In general, I think it is
universal with the perspective that _in sum_ over our lives (plus
the lives of others thrown in - kids etc.) we try to minimize pain.
BTW, I'm using pain in way that includes both the physical and
emotional.

But this ambiguity means that in particular situations pain is
acceptable or even desirable.  There is a list of things that
people believe you can only do or learn if pain is involved.  You
start with the idea: I want to minimize my/others pain *but* I will
allow pain in this instance as a means to an end.

As I tried to allude in another post of mine on this subject we
have a problem in agreeing when a particular instance of allowing
pain to occur serves the larger goal of living a better life.

Hopefully not to confuse things more - I would point out that
people on alt.sex.bondage actively inflict pain on their partners.
But it serves an end (whether you agree with it or not) that is
beyond just the delivery of pain.  Clearly, they don't avoid
physical pain (administered in prescribed situations) and this is
compensated by an emotional satisfaction.

Perhaps the potential universal could be restated as a ratio:

    The higher my pleasure/pain ratio the better

-=] Steve [=-     SKLAUTKY@VAXA.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Animals in Research
Date: 29 Sep 92 02:51:22 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <1992Sep25.034059.2458@athena.cs.uga.edu>, 
hulsey@athena.cs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey) writes:
 
> I cannot speak for everyone, but at UGA we follow the AWA to the letter 
> and even EXCEED its mandate.  For example, my rat studies aren't covered 
> by AWA, but we treat them as though they are.

I thought that, for NIH sourced funding, rats ARE covered. Further, a recent 
court decision extended this coverage to rats under the USDA aegis, ruling 
basically that Congress intended them to be covered and the USDA was 
subverting Congressional will by not doing so. If anything, the USDA 
treatment of rodents (and birds, I think) prior to the court decision 
exemplifies a "minimalist" approach often taken vis-a-vis animal protection 
in research. 

As another example, witness the USDA's attempts to generate primate and 
canine care guidelines that meet the approval of the research community. In 
the case of primates, these were based on the recommendations of a number of 
primate care experts (around 10, I think) and have met with stiff resistance 
from the research community. Sufficiently stiff that they weren't adopted. 
Instead, it was left up to the individual institutions to determine and 
follow their own guidelines.   

 
> The 
> distinction between animal research and animal testing is not simply one 
> of jargon.  If you do not understand the distinction, you should not 
> criticize either.

Come on, Martin. You can do better than that. Say something!
  
 
>  The tactic that you employ here is straight from paragraph 8 of my 
>  original post.  If you employ strict utilitarian standards, then, by 
>  definition, ALL basic research is useless.  If you knew more about 
>  science, you would understand the fallacy of this approach.  Today's 
>  basic experiments yield tomorrow's clinical methodologies that DO indeed 
>  save lives.

Your approach is used to grant carte blanche to ANY experiment that might 
conceivably lead, someday, to a benefit to humans. This basic science 
argument has been used in just as extreme a manner as has any AR argument. 

 
>  If you are unhappy about the scope of the AWA, call your congressperson.  
>  Don't whine about the activities of those who obey the law in its 
>  present form.

Why NOT? Ethics and law aren't equivalent. If these actions are truly 
unethical, their legality shouldn't be used as a shield. 

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Downed Animal Legislation
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:45:02 GMT

In article <=akz8wr@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>Robert Black writes:
>
>>The Downed Animal Protection Act of 1992, S 2296 and HR 5680 state:
>>
>>  It shall be unlawful for any stockyard owner, market agency, or dealer
>>  to buy, sell, give, receive, transfer, market, or hold nonambulatory
>>  livestock unless the livestock has been humanely euthanized.
>
>[...]
>>We have seen and heard many hunters express their concern for the
>>welfare of animals.  Here's an issue where hunters may be able to lend
>>support.  It does not threaten any hunting activities and it can relieve
>>unnecessary animal suffering.  AR intervention on the "downer" problem
>>is making a difference by increasing public awareness and sensitizing
>>stockyard operators to the need for a change. 
>
>Bob, since you are our resident expert (dubious honour, no doubt), 

John, I nearly missed this posting, submerged as it was under the deluge
of Texas conference postings.  Again you give me too much credit here.

>I have another question before I fire letters off to my congressmen
>about this.  Just out of curiosity, *why* does everyone keep these
>animals alive under these circumstances?  Is it (presumably) due to
>some dopey FDA regulation that says the animal must stay alive and be
>killed on the slaugterhouse floor?  What gives?  Have you heard any
>justification for this practice?

As far as I know, it is unrelated to any FDA regulation, and is more a
case of neglect and taking the path of least resistance.  The animals in
question are crippled, sick, weak, starved, or otherwise unable to walk
by themselves.  It takes extra time and effort to move them and it's
just easier to temporarily let them lay where they've fallen and then
when convenient to attach a chain around a leg and drag them off the
truck if that's where they are (thus breaking bones) and out to the
killing floor. 

Due to bad publicity about it (especially in the form of videotapes
taken at stockyards in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and St. Paul,
Minnesota), the agricultural industry is perking up somewhat over the
issue.  Even the venerable Hoard's Dairyman magazine had an article last
year calling for improvement in the situation. 

The Animals' Voice magazine volume 4 number 2 has a picture of a downed
cow with, what I found to be, an absolutely heartrending expression on
her face.  For more information, call, write, or visit the Farm
Sanctuary, PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891.  Their phone is
607-583-2225.  They're sort of out there in your neck of the woods. 


>  I'd like to know what it is before I
>lick the stamps.... :-)
>
>
>John
>
---
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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Hunters Needed
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:11:02 GMT

jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson) writes:

>I doubt any hunter chose to attend the Expo _over_ the Conference, because I
>doubt any hunter would have even considered attending an animal rights
>conference, or would have even known about it.  Likewise, I did not choose
>to attend the Conference _over_ the Expo.  No way I would attend a pro-hunting
>event.  Come on!  

	It's interesting to note you make the high claim of being Right, a
knower of the Truth, standing outside of fur stores (do that when I enter
and I'll buy one just to spite you -- another data point for your "if it
stops just one" justification), yet you won't go to the Expo?  What's
wrong, afraid you might run out of people to convince?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: results of discussions
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:04:34 GMT

Hello,

sometimes the contents of the articles go below the belt:-(
Mine sometimes too :-((
Is there any chance to come together?
Or do we only have frontlines without any movement.
Do discussions like these in this group lead to any
changing of the front?
What do you think of a talk.politiks.animals-census?

With regards,
Udo.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:52:01 GMT

>idiot"?
>
>Tactical Note:  To the date of this post, Russell has not given any opinion
>on the issue of "hunting hunters".  He has only diverted the discussion
>to other areas.  For all we know, Russell might actually agree that
>hunting hunters is "idiotic".
>

I am interested in Russell Lawrence's opinion:  is the assertion
that a hunter rightfully should progress in his/her hunting challenges
to the conclusion of hunting another hunter
(due to the "ultimate" challenge such pursuit would offer) idiotic?
From: wheeler@super.org (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: MAN TV on Fur
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:37:42 GMT



M.A.N. - TV
Modern Animal News Television
Post Office Box 477219
Chicago, Illinois  60647-7219
Phone (312) 278-9011
Fax (708) 393-2941
 
NEWS RELEASE
 
The Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition in St. Paul MN has threatened Modern
Animal News TV with a lawsuit if any video clips filmed at the Gingles Fur
Ranch in Lake Zurich, IL is presented at the Artists' Auction for the
Animals.
 
"MAN TV welcomes the lawsuit," states Lair Scott, Executive Producer and
Host of Modern Animal News.  "Mr. Gingle signed an appearance release. We
attempt to get both sides of the story, and we regret if the Fur Farm Animal
Welfare Coalition feels these activities need to be censored. We are here
for the animals."
 
MAN TV is in the editing room now preparing a music video with music by
David Bowie on Fur Free Friday, November 27th, to be shown across the
nation.
 
 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Bowhunting wound rates
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:03:28 GMT

In article <viking.718345946@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>
>
>>   "While collecting deer in my research, I tied baiting and had an unusual
>>   experience - twice.
>
>	Just an FYI, but this is illegal in many, of not most, states.  It
>appears that Mr. Benke is either not familiar with hunting regs, which
>would cast some doubt on his qualifications as a hunter, or else hasn't
>really hunted the deer, just tried to pick them off.  While it's not
>relevant to his results per se, it is relevant if he has not practiced
>enough to realize the limitations of his weapons or developed the skills
>necessary to utilize them well.  In any event, a blow to his credibility.
>

Just a note to let you know that baiting is legal in Texas, and practiced
by the majority of hunters. Many of us immigrants feel it's unsporting and
refuse to do it. I'm out there to hunt, and if I'm lucky and good I'll kill
a deer. But I've got to earn it.

Jeff Achenbach
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Response to Bob Black (long)
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:40:03 GMT

> 
>   Here are some revelant quotes from Benke (who started bowhunting in 1949):
>
>	   My early experience with 'large game' were mystifying.
>	   Sometimes I saw arrows effect quick kills with seemingly
>	   poor hits; and I saw broadheads fail to kill with good
>	   hits, including lung shots.  Overall I'd say I lost three
>	   or four animals to each one I killed.  And of all the 
>	   bowhunters I observed, none did any better.  [p. 8]
>
>	   [rest deleted]
>

How did he know he made lung shots if the deer was lost? Anyone who is this
bad shouldn't be hunting. Unfortunately, we presently have no legal mechanism
to weed out the slobs, which Benke, from this paragraph, obviously is. It is
outrageous that he would continue to hunt while shooting so poorly. I don't 
care if he bowhunted for 50 years, the man has declared himself incompetent.
I've known both gun hunters and bow hunters to wound and lose deer. IMO, 
most could have been found had the hunters practiced their tracking skills.
I've never known anyone who would admit to such a horrendous average.

>I know many bowhunters.  I have never heard ratios anywhere near this
>bad.  I personally know of one injured deer that was not recovered out
>of 10 shots.  I have not seen, heard or read anything to suggest that
>this is out of the ordinary.
>
>   Now I don't claim any particular expertise in this because I have never
>   bowhunted.  I note that generally bowhunters tend to deny what Benke
>   says and the bowhunting establishment opposes him.  One hunter relative
>   of mine took up bowhunting about 5 years ago and last year had his first
>   shot.  He scored a non-fatal hit and the deer escaped.  This greatly
>   upset my relative, partly because it had never happened to him in 20
>   years of successful gunhunting.  He swore off bowhunting ...  for a few
>   days - until he allegedly spotted the same deer, alive and well.  Did he
>   really?  Was he really sure that this was the SAME deer he had wounded a
>   few days earlier?  I find myself doubting it. 
>

Individual deer can be recognizable, much the same as purebred dogs of the 
same breed. For me, it would take more than one sighting, unless there was
something outstanding about that individual, like a nontypical rack. Your
relative made a poor shot. He either didn't practice enough, shot beyond his
effective range, or hit an obstruction. Buck fever is the most likely reason.
So what never happened to him in 20 years? A nonfatal hit? That just says 
he is a better shot with a rifle than a bow. Operator error, pure and simple.


Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:06:02 GMT

>
>>2)  in spite of the almost unanimous good sense and tolerance
>>exhibited by the hunters in this group with their lofty goals of only
>>hunting what they eat and aiming for a quick kill there are slob hunters
>>out there who a) enjoy killing and b) could care less if the animals
>>suffers when they kill;
>

Sadly, I talked to one such "hunter" this weekend. He told me of missing 
a running shot at a doe 40 yards away. I was angry, but figured I could do
more good with a friendly conversation about bowhunting ethics than with 
a scolding. Hopefully I at least made him think.

>
>Unfortunately, you are right.  I personally have seen the 4x4 truck rolling
>down the dirt road with slobs standing up in the bed with a beer in one had
>and a rifle in the other.  I detest such images and am positive they are the
>exception rather than the rule however.  Are we to judge all ARs by the 
>actions of the few radicals that will kill and maim to get their point 
>across?  NO.  And neither should the AR community judge the majority of hunt-
>ers who truly love and care about their lifestyle and tradition by the
>actions of the relatively few "slob" hunters out there.  Book 'em, send 
>them to jail if they poach or break other laws.  I'll be the first to 
>condemn them.
>
>
>>3)  I have such a fellow who hunts on the farmland I rent.  I suspect
>>he is up in his deer stand drinking beer while he waits for his deer.
>>I am not saying that he is drunk; he probably puts down a 12 pack per
>>day regardless of whether he is hunting or not.  Because I am not a
>>hunter I want to know if among hunters drinking beer while hunting is
>>just considered "slob hunting" or in fact is illegal in certain states?
>
>
>Why do you let him hunt your property?  In California, to the best of my
>knowledge it IS against the law to drink while hunting but, I might add 
>that I and the buddies I hunt with would not consider drinking with rifles
>in our hands even if it was legal.  I would never hunt with that type of
>person.  I do enjoy a good drunk every now and again but, after the hunt
>is the time for that.  Some folks just have more common sense than others
>I reckon.
>

I've heard such allegations and generally figured them to be anti-hunter
propaganda. Alcohol and firearms (or bows) don't mix. I'd ask him point 
blank, and if there's any evidence at all he's drinking and hunting, throw
him out, report him to the game warden, but don't allow him on your property.
You, your family, or livestock could get hurt.

Jeff Achenbach
From: me@halfab.ka.sub.org  (Udo_Meyer)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the anti-hunters
Reply-To: me@halfab.ka.sub.org
Organization: Udo Meyer, Postwiese 32, 7746 Hornberg, Germany, 49 7833 1425
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.223037.7646@cbfsb.cb.att.com> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com  
(mary.rita.otto) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.222212.398@halfab.ka.sub.org>  
me%halfab@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org writes:
> >In article <92261.143315DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu> <DJC143@psuvm.psu.edu>  
writes:
> >> Keep up the good work swood!  And good hunting
> >
> >Why don't hunters hunt hunters?
> >Afraid of an animal that can defend itself?
> >
> >With regards, 
> >Udo.
> 
> Regards?  I think not.
> 
> I will make the wildly offensive assumption that you are asking why
> humans don't hunt other humans for sport in your question.  The
> answer is:
> 1.  A respect for human life.
> 2.  A respect for laws against murder.
> 3.  A respect for hunting regulations (there is no legal "season").
> 
> Second question:  (Are hunters ...) afraid of an animal that can
> defend itself?
> No.  Bears, for example, can defend themselves pretty darn well.
> In fact, every animal has some form of defense, and many are
> quite capable of killing a human.
> 
> Mary Otto
> 
I am sorry that my statement is misinterpretet, and I must say
it is the worst I ever said. Seems, that I lost selfcontrol.
It is no request to kill humans. Killing humans IS murder.
It is no assignment that hunters are cowards in general.
And I am aware that powerful animals can defend themself.
But they can't defend themself against big calibers.
And (this IS my opinion) it is not necessary to kill animals
without any need for selfdefence or food.
I only know that even powerful animals do not always attack humans
without reason. Bears, wolfs, sharks, etc. are not the beasts
they are often told to be. They try to avoid a conflict, if possible.
The implication of 'hunting' humans under conditions of war
was not intended. Even if some people do it now in e.g. Yugoslawia.

Udo.
From: wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Hunting Debate Misunderstanding
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:21:38 GMT



I believe there seems to be some misunderstanding about the
Fund for Animals Conference and the proposed debate between
Ingrid Newkirk/Wayne Pacelle and any hunting apologists that
wish to appear.

It is my understanding (from reading the flyer) is that the
debate at 8 p.m. on Friday night is completely free and open
to the public.  It is the conference: Oct. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
which costs money.  The debate is held in conjunction with the
conference but it is FREE to the public.  As for the price of
the conference, it is actually very cheap as these things go.

Take care,

Ferrell Wheeler
wheeler@super.org

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals