The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
*does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths. "aras" have been
maniacally trying to oppose that simple fact any way they can
for as long as I've been posting--about seven years--and I feel
certain since before I started whenever the issue was brought up.

I have yet to encounter *any* vegan who cares anywhere
near as much about human influence on animals, as about
promoting veganism *regardless!!!* of that influence.

If so, then you should take the anijmals' lives into consideration,
and should also consider that some types of animal products not
only provide decent lives for livestock, but they also involve fewer
animal deaths than some types of vegetable products, *and* they
provide better habitat for may types of wildlife than crop fields
do. Such significant issues as those are not only unappreciated
by vegans/"aras", but facts like those are the main things that
work *against* "ar" in favor of decent animal welfare. IF you
are in favor of decent AW for livestock, "ar" is something to be
opposed just as "aras" oppose considering lives of positive value for livestock.


Good point. If you look into it you might find that "aras" can
and do exploit AW issues in order to obtain funding for their
elimination objective...dishonesty that couldn't work the same
way for AW. Also, people in favor of AW are in the position to
openly point out that "ar" is an opposing idea which works
*against* AW, while "aras" dishonestly deny the truth of that.
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to consider the
lives of livestock as well as their deaths, while "aras" are
terrified of that happening and certainly can't consider such
a very significant aspect of human influence on animals
themselves...and they do *not!* want anyone else to either.
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to point out
and consider the fact that some animal products involve
fewer animal deaths than some vegetable products, while
"aras" will not only *never* consider that aspect much less
point it out, but often dishonestly try to deny the truth of it!
Also, people in favor of AW are in a position to be more
honest about their contribution to animal deaths in general,
while "aras" want to deny their contribution to any animal
deaths even while they contentedly contribute to all the
same deaths that everyone else does except for the
deaths of animals who would have no life at all had they
not been raised for food. Those are some of the things
people should take into consideration when trying to
decide whether to become vegan, or a more conscientious
consumer of animal products.

pearl

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
.....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits like roaming, breeding,and foraging. In contrast,
the grass-fed cow, while able to roam some distance in a fenced
pasture, may suffer third-degree burns (branding), have holes
punched in his ears (tagging), be castrated, have his horns
scooped out of his head (dehorning), and be kept from breeding
naturally. Once reaching market weight, he can be transported up
to several hundred miles without food, water, or protection from
extreme heat or cold; then he is killed in a conventional
slaughterhouse. The conditions of slaughter-houses have been
described in detail elsewhere (Eisnitz, 1997). Suffice it to say, it is
hard to imagine that the pain experienced by a mouse as she or
he is killed in a harvester compares to the pain even a grass-fed
cow must endure before being killed.
.....'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats
enough forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope,
7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce. ... http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html


'Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare in
crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture (7.5).
If this is true, then as long as crop production uses less than half
as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to deliver the same amount
of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer animals than an omnivore. In
fact, crop production uses less than half as many hectares as
grass-fed dairy and one-tenth as many hectares as grass-fed beef to
deliver the same amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of
protein can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy cows, or
10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef cattle (Vandehaar,
1998;UNFAO, 1996). As such, to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein
per year recommended for adults, a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3
wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals,
while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus,
correcting Davis's math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a
lacto-vegetarian population.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

Ten billion animals who only experience life because of their
consumers, unlike the willdlife who are killed as well. How many
more wild animals are killed than livestock, have you even the
slightest clue?

(prediction: no clue, because you don't care in the least)


They thrive and survive much better in grazing areas than
in crop fields too.


Is that really worse than being crushed, suffocated, ripped apart,
crippled and killed by predators or ants, or slowly dying from poison
like the animals you don't care in the least about?

pearl

'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.
....
We have seen the case for vegetarianism is stronger than the case for
eating ruminants - namely, vegetarianism kills fewer animals, involves
better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals
with lives worth living to exist. These arguments stand alone, yet it is
worthwhile to mention the additional benefits of vegetarianism to human
health, which are considerable (ADA 1997), and to charity.
....'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

It doesn't matter even IF that is true in some cases.


No reason to believe that one.


There's certainly no reason to believe that one at all. NONE!


.. . .

There's no reason to believe that either since grazing areas
are a lot more wildlife friendly than crop fields, AND they provide
life for the livestock as well.

pearl

It is undoubtably true in all cases, and should very much matter
to somebody who claims to support animals "experiencing life".


There's every reason to believe it. Read what you've snipped.


Would you choose to be wrenched from your mother at a very
young age, mutilated, confined, transported long-distance and
killed at the equivalent age of about 10 years old, or be raised
by your mother and when independant, live a full, free life?


'As we already saw, ruminant production uses ten times as much land
as crop production to yield the same amount of food (protein). Thus, as
long as the combined number of wild animals on nine wild acres plus one
cultivated acre is greater than the number of animals on ten grazed acres,
a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number of wild animals to exist.'
http://web.archive.org/web/200502170...r/matheny.html

'Wyoming state biologists have estimated that one cow eats enough
forage to support 6.9 bighorn sheep, 10.8 antelope, 7.8 deer or 2.1 elk.'
http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/cattle_grazing.cfm

''The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching.
...
Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

Snip it all again, dh@? You can't 'win', so just stop trolling.

Not if I don't believe grazing land would be turned into wildlife refuges,
which I certainly do NOT.

I have no reason to believe most wild animals live longer than
livestock, and in fact believe they don't. Most die very young, imo.


.. . .
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat. http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯


By "win" you mean I can't get you to appreciate the fact that
sometimes animal products are better for the environment than
vegetable products, and when that's the case. I can understand
and appreciate it, but you "can't" be made to. That certainly
doesn't make you in any way superior.

What's the big deal? In nature, the animals higher up the food chain
harvest the animals further down the food chain. There is no ethics
question involved in the process. You do what you do.

Here is how it works. You bait a hook. You catch the fish. You eat it.
Or you go to the store, buy the fish, bring it home, cook it and eat
it.

And the world revolves as it should. Denying who and what you are is
not a healthy thing.

TC

pearl

"Refuges"? That is THEIR habitat. It does NOT belong to YOU.


IYO. "full", as in experience. All domestic livestock only live a fraction
of their lifespan. ALL of those bred to be eaten are killed at a tender age.

It is *not* a choice between cropland and pasture, but between
pasture and NATURAL HABITAT. Why won't you get that?

Actually, it belongs to the species that is higher in the food chain.
And that would be *us*. That is the natural orde of things on this
earth. Mother Nature wants it that way.


Yep, they do only live a fraction of their *potential* lifespan but
they, on average would probably live much shorter lives in their
natural habitat. In their natural habitat, the vast majority would be
dead at or near the time of their birth or shortly thereafter. That is
when they are most heavily predated upon by their natural predators.
Nature is pretty darned cruel.

And that is assuming that they could revert back to survival in their
natural habitat. Most domesticated animals today would not survive very
long in the wild. And can you imagine the stress of being faced with
having to deal with real wild predators?

At least we feed them, protect them, and we harvest them with some
modicum of compassion and a quick and relatively painless death.
Imagine them being torn apart alive by predators in the wild. Which
would you prefer? TC