From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: PETA Activities Suspected of Violating FCC Act, Says PPF
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 22:26:20 GMT

Robert Black writes:

>In article <lqfy2#+@rpi.edu> vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>The evidence continues to mount that there are really two John Van Ettens.
>The first one - let's call him the Good John - has recognized that animals
>have some rights and actually signs petitions against unnecessary cruelty
>inflicted on geese to fatten up their livers.  The Bad John comes up with
>drivel like that below and in other postings which I read but lacked the 
>time to answer before their disappearance from this site.

Hi, Bob.  Glad to see I struck a nerve, that's often the best way to
see the true reflexes of people. :-)  Alas, there is only one of me,
although I doubt you're disappointed in that.  And that one of me is
neither Good nor Bad, as you've put it (although popular opinion may
be that I'm closer to the latter than the former :-).  That one of me
is now, and always shall be, quite pro-animal.  (You AR folk are more
than welcome to call that self-serving, if you'd like -- perhaps it
is... I don't know.)


>>Steve, I've read this at least six times now, and I still think you
>>are somehow serious about this deluded passage.  You've got to be
>>kidding me.  Like most other hunters, I long for the day when the
>>media shows you AR folk for exactly what you *are*, 
>
>Yes, the AR folks also want to be shown for exactly what they are.
>However that realistic view is not synonymous with the delusion you've
>set forth here.

So you say, Bob.  I went to a meeting the night before last (perhaps
it in part spurred my reply to Steve's rediculous thought that the
media labels you folk as fanatics) that was held by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) about their recent
Draft Environmental Impact Study on re-introducing moose into the
Adirondack Mountains.  Quite an interesting event, as it bordered on
an AR rally.  Seems the DEC (scared to death about being PC in calling
the meeting) sent a disproportionate amount of mail to AR groups
instead of hunter or environmental groups.  But I was there to see the
show.  And the PETA reps (claiming that they represent 500,000 members
in New York :-) :-), stood up and told us that they were against
bringing these moose, which are overpopulated in the park in New
England where they are coming from (read starving in Winter), into New
York because the DEC predicts that more than 20 years down the road
they *may* have to have special hunting in certain areas to control the
herd since there are no natural predators (wolves) to control them.
But more on this meeting below...


>>instead of
>>painting you as a bunch of animal lovers and do-gooders.  You folk
>>would rather see animals die of starvation or be torn limb-from-limb
>>by predators while still alive than (God forbid) allow a hunter to
>>shoot one and feed his or her family.  You folk don't give a damn that
>>by trying to stop hunting you are taking away the single largest
>>source of money that is spent on environment restoration (an amount
>>over *one billion* dollars per year from license fees, the 11% excise
>>taxes on all our equipment, etc.).  Imagine what would happen if the
>>media told the American public that, rather than hug bunnies, you folk
>>want to shut down Mickey D's and stop all animal experiments that
>>could cure illnesses such as AIDS or cancer, 
>
>Be sure and hold your breath while awaiting animal experiments to
>deliver humans from these scourges.  :-) ...especially cancer for which
>millions of animal lives have been sacrificed for over a hundred years,
>during which the cancer rate has risen and during which inadequate
>attention has been devoted to prevention. 

Forgive me if I misinterpret you, but you seem to be saying that I'm
right that you folk don't want animals used to try and cure AIDS and
cancer.  The fact that the media rarely notes that (not good
headlines, I guess) was my only point -- not that you are bad people
for feeling that way (although I'll reserve the right to feel you all
are confused or misinformed).


>>instead of beating the
>>anti-hunter drums as part of their happy little agenda to disarm the
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>American people 
>
>This is a gross misrepresenatation, at best, or an outright lie, at
>worst.  Have your arguments against the AR positions become so weak that
>you now need to resort to conjured up linkages in order to make your
>case?

I'm confused Bob.  Perhaps you've misinterpretted what I wrote, but
the "their" which you've underscored refers to the media, not AR folk.
Or is it that you truly don't think the media has an agenda to disarm
the citizens (did you watch Tom Brokaw's "Special" on NBC -- or did
you actually believe Tom was just "reporting the facts" with no
agenda)?  Also, you seem pretty upset, Bob.  Please don't take any of
this stuff personal.


>>(us mean-old-nasty-"assault-rifle"-toting-scum-of-
>>the-Earth-Bambi-killers being a good start on their mission).  The
>>media will never mention all the good that hunters do in controlling
>>animal populations and helping the environment, 
>
>What media? Walk into a typical supermarket in the area where I live and
>take a glance at the magazine racks.  What do you see?  I won't keep you
>in suspense here.  You see DOZENS of pro-hunting magazines.  How many AR
>magazines?  If you said zero, then you're right on.  Whose view is
>getting the opportunity for wider distribution?

Aye, there's the rub.  We seem to disagree quite a bit on what we
consider to be "the media."  Forgive any sarcasm, but I've always
thought "the media" was things like the six o'clock news and the
morning newspaper.  You know, *news* the average person reads, not any
pro-hunting mags that are not read by a general audience.  Nor any
PETA brochures.  These are both propaganda, Bob, and nothing more.
     What I'm talking about is being at the moose meeting of the DEC
and having the local papers write articles and the local TV stations
have news blips about "AR movement tries to stop slaughter of moose in
New York -- DEC only bringing them in for hunting" and "Hunters lobby
for rights to kill 'endangered' moose being stocked in New York State,
despite Animal Rights cries to help the poor animals."  And that's
exactly how "the media" (if you'll permit me to use my definition)
presented to event to the general public, despite the opinions voiced
by myself and other hunters present that we don't want to kill any
moose unless it were absolutely needed down the road.  It was summed
up quite nicely by a young fellow representing one of the local
sportsmans' associations when he said (paraphrased) that he thought it
was rather sad that these moose should have to starve where they are
instead of being brought into New York simply because some people
[ARs] couldn't see past their hatred of hunting far enough to see the
good that was being done and the fact that the hunters didn't want to
kill the moose either.  [Again, such culling -- if it were to *ever*
become necessary -- would occur many decades down the road.  Please
note also that *no* general tax money was to be used for the project.]


>Go into the local libraries and do likewise.  What's your guess on the
>relative numbers of magazines representing the two viewpoints? If the
>hunting viewpoint is not getting the degree of acceptability that you
>yearn for, then maybe it's because the arguments are weak. 

The hunting viewpoint is not presented correctly or fairly to the
general population (trust me, if it were, you [general] rabid
anti-hunters would have been in the bread lines years ago).  The AR
viewpoint is glorified -- you folk are the do-gooder, peace-loving,
bunny-huggers that wouldn't harm a fly.  Readily glossed over are your
true views about things like letting animals starve or be eaten alive
by predators rather than (God Forbid) a gun be fired.  And the fact
that flies are Icky Things -- oops, sorry, I meant "not sentient." :-)


>[...]
>
>Two points on other topics:
>
>1.  Hunters have typically been staunch DU defenders.  Recently Jonathon
>Esterhazy posted some info about the new DU headquarters in Canada and
>this info portrayed DU in a somewhat negative light.  Since news has not
>always been arriving here regularly over the past few weeks, I missed
>the responses.  What was the hunting community's answer?

We want more info.  If things are *exactly* as represented, and have
not been subjected to any inappropriate AR filters (far be it from me
to imply you folk would be anything but truthful in your propaganda
;-) then I'm sure we will be concerned as well.


>2.  John, you called for Texas hunters to demonstrate at the AR
>convention to be held there this fall.  Good for you.  I hope they make
>a showing and express their views.  You also asked for information on
>any such gatherings in New York state, so that you and your conservation
>buddies could make an appearance.  You seemed to imply that AR people
>fear such open exchanges and want to meet secretly in some hideaway so
>they can pat each other on the back and glory in their delusionary Bambi
>fantasies.  Actually the opposite is true.  Generally AR people welcome
>the chance to participate in civil public debates on the issues.  So I
>encourage you to show up at any public event.  Just be ready to be
>invited inside to defend your views. 

I don't recall saying that AR folk fear open exchanges (in fact, you
folk seem to get off on shouting and name-calling if my encounters
with you, such as the other night, are any indication).  Rather, I
said that you fear the truth.  Especially if the general public is
made aware of it (you're coming for Ronald ;-( ).


>In fact, around Labor Day there will be, in the Hegins Pennsylvania
>area, be a plethora of AR people present to demonstate against the
>annual canned Hegins pigeon shoot.  There's still time for you and your
>conservation friends to pack your camping gear, hop a bus, and ride to
>the site of a major gathering of AR people.  Don't miss this opportunity
>to engage in discourse with some prominent national AR leaders!  Don't
>miss this chance to tell PETA leaders to their face what you think of
>them!

Forgive me if I decline your magnanimous offer, Bob.  But I'm not all
that into defending such pigeon shoots, if you know what I mean.  And
despite the Rev. Neimollier's (sp?) words, I can't take the time off
right now.
     Oh, and while I have a higher opinion of cow dung than I do of
anyone that would support the actions of a group like ALF (note that
Ingrid Newkirk is on record as saying that she wouldn't report her
knowledge of thier actions to the authorities), my personal feelings
about these people are not important.  Let's stick to the issues, eh?
I don't hate AR types.  I merely think the world needs a better view
of your *true* opinions. ;-)


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