Help End the Cruel Harp Seal Hunt
in [Vegetarian]
|
Prev: SpayVac� Managing wildlife without slaughter?
Next: Most early humans ate primarily plant foods...
From: pearl on 13 Mar 2007 12:37 <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:etfdv2tsm0gh8pa8t6gfegospgndgg33qm(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:59:09 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > wrote: > > ><10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:mllbv216b5bqcmbf64nrlci0vlf30poom3(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:53:10 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > >> wrote: > >> > >> ><10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:im58v21keb9fhg0f0s1334e77kglgu4gev(a)4ax.com... > >> >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:07:11 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate > >> >> >for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, > >> >> >infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian > >> >> >diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in > >> >> >the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain > >> >> >diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, > >> >> >cancers, diabetes etc. > >> >> > > >> >> >This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, > >> >> >the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a > >> >> >review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical > >> >> >Association: > >> >> > > >> >> >'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, > >> >> >high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.' > >> >> >...' > >> >> >http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> You should see the millions of hectares stolen from wildlife habitat > >> >> so that farmers can grow food for folks who eat cerial crops and > >> >> vegetables. All those animals that used that habitat are now shut out > >> >> and starving. > >> >> Not to mention all of the fertilizers, herbicides, and pestiticides > >> >> farmers use to maximize the crops they grow to sell to vegetarians. > >> >> All that stuff is poisoning the earth. Give me pristine wilderness, > >> >> grubbing for roots, and eating small (and large) mammals and fish that > >> >> I catch my self. I'm really into organic.... > >> > > >> >Non sequitur. As you've mentioned it, though.. > >> > > >> >'Livestock a major threat to environment > >> >.. > >> >Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth's entire land surface, mostly > >> >permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land > >> >used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are > >> >cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, > >> >especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of > >> >former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing. > >> > > >> >Land and water > >> > > >> >At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about > >> >20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, > >> >compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands > >> >where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management > >> >contribute to advancing desertification. > >> > > >> >The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the > >> >earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other > >> >things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral > >> >reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and > >> >hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used > >> >to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, > >> >reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. > >> >Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed. > >> > > >> >Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous > >> >and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to > >> >biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems. > >> > > >> >Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all > >> >terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock's presence in vast tracts of land > >> >and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; > >> >15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, > >> >with livestock identified as a culprit. > >> >... > >> >http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html > >> > > >> >Impact of livestock grazing on wildlife and habitat worldwide: > >> >http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html > >> > > >> >"global arable land" = "present cropland".. > >> > > >> >From Technological Trajectories and the Human Environment. > >> >1997. Pp. 56-73. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. > >> >"How Much Land Can Ten Billion People Spare for Nature?".. > >> > > >> >'By eating different species of crops and a more or less vegetarian > >> >diet people can change the number that a plot can feed. And large > >> >numbers of people do change their diets. The calories and protein > >> >available from present cropland could provide a vegetarian diet to > >> >ten billion people. A diet requiring food and feed totaling 6,000 > >> >calories daily for ten billion people, however, would overwhelm > >> >the capability of present agriculture on present cropland. The > >> >global totals of sun, CO2, fertilizer, and even water could produce > >> >far more food than what ten billion people need. > >> >..' > >> >http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56 > >> > >> > >> And growing crops and vegetables is also a major threat to the > >> environment. > > > >'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust > >for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic > >farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides > >used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects > >and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to > >be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other > >animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many > >of their habitats. > >http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/Farming/benefits.html > > > >'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially > >greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the > >organic farms, as outlined below: > >- Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more > >species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found > >only on organic farms. > >- Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in > >autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher > >skylark breeding rates. > >- Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise > >bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas; > >one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as > >many spider species. > >- Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in > >numbers of pest butterflies. > >- Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries > >had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found > >in the cropped areas of the fields. > >- Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats > >were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries > >had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift. > >..' > >http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm > > Too bad it is not economically viable for farmers to use organic > methods in most of Canada. > Farming is a business and the objective is to maximize the profits so > that the farme doesn't go bankrupt. Evidence? You might as well back your claims up with evidence from here on, as I see no reason to take your word on anything. > >> Livestock utilize land that can not be used for vegetables and crops. > > > >Don't they just. Arable land too. > > You may find it strange but livestock shares the habatit with the > wildlife, and grazing allows many native plant species to grow where 'Most of Canada is likewise ungrazable, being enveloped with cold, herbage-scarce conifer forest or Arctic tundra. However, about 200,000 square miles (an area 4 times larger than New York) of the Great Plains of central Canada, most of south-central British Columbia, and portions of southeast Canada are grazed, mostly by 11 million cattle. Most of this land is overgrazed, in the west much of it with a welfare public lands ranching system similar to that of the US. As in the US, Canadian ranchers are foremost among those exploiting the wild and opposing protection for wolves, grizzly bears, and large herbivores in ranching areas. For example, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association recently ('90s) presented a position paper to the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture recommending that the entire population of the world's largest free-roaming buffalo herd be exterminated from Alberta's Wood Buffalo National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, because some of the buffalo are infected with brucellosis and tuberculosis. (The buffalo have carried these diseases since contacting them from cattle in the 1920s, before their forebears were shipped in from overgrazed areas to the south at the insistence of cattlemen who wanted to make way for more cows.) ...' http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html > if it were cropland it would be a monoculture. If we were all vegetarian, that could again be natural habitat. > Not to mention that in order to keep grazing lands productive they > have to be managed. That management includes leaving enough food for > wildlife. Have a good long read at the above link.
From: pearl on 13 Mar 2007 12:43 <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:86gdv25vcvg63a7pbnkbdlejdg7auft5fe(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:06:30 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > wrote: > > >"Chom Noamsky" <e(a)t.me> wrote in message news:y0hJh.38687$lY6.20732(a)edtnps90... > >> > "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote in message > >> > news:et3pe6$v67$1(a)reader01.news.esat.net... > > > >> > Omnivores are carnivorous. Where are meat-eating adaptations? > >> > >> The brain. > > > >'Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a > >reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. > >This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods > >have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. > > It is man, the hunter gatherer. Humans utilized every food source > they could in the past. There are some places in the world where even > rodents are considered for the menu, along with all the edible plant > species.. 'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals. From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during the interglacials. ' http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm "Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lop� Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 'Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research." ...' http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm
From: pearl on 13 Mar 2007 12:57 <10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:5bgdv2l0697am0285lckpq17b6djr5h09r(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:52:15 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> > wrote: ... > >> >Stop pretending that this slaughter is about real need and survival. > >> > >> So if the "slaugter" is stopped how do these folks get enough money to > >> survive? WHat replaces the seal meat? > > > >Three things have been suggested: a. continue to receive state > >welfare payments for those two weeeks, b. eco-tourism, and, > >c. collecting seal pups' moulting white fur for warm bedding. > > I would strongly suggest those opposed to the seal hunt contribute > their disposable income towards the welfare of the seal hunters so > they don't have to kill seals for income. You do know that you were offered $16m last year to cancel this "hunt", and that it was rejected by your prime minister? > As for ecotourism, that is laugable. Would you pay several thousand > dollars a day to pet a baby seal and risk getting bitten? > There isn't a market for this is there? 'Canadian government rejects $16 million to end seal hunt Connecticut Businesswoman Makes $16 Million Offer to Canadian Prime Minister to End Slaughter of Canadian Baby Seals NEW CANAAN, Conn., April 4 /CNW/ -- In a just-released letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Cathy Kangas, CEO and Founder of PRAI Beauty, a global beauty company, has offered to raise the $16 million that Canadian fishermen will realize from the sale of the pelts of slaughtered baby seals. Ms. Kangas wrote: "If you stop this year's hunt immediately, we will provide you with the $16 million to be distributed at your discretion." The Canadian government has stated repeatedly that the seal hunt provides needed off-season income to the fishermen in the communities of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland. Ms. Kangas also proposed working with the Canadian government to institute a program to buy back existing fishing licenses and launch a program of eco-tourism in Northeastern Canada to replace the seal hunt. "Canadian fishermen could earn more money serving as park rangers for high-end tours to Canada to see the beautiful spectacle of seals giving birth on the ice floes," she noted. She said that whale-watching tours in Canada have been very successfully attracting visitors. "We are providing you with an alternative to what Paul McCartney called 'a stain on the character of the Canadian people.' If this is really simply an economic problem, then take our offer," Mrs. Kangas stated in her letter. The money, she pointed out, will be raised from private citizens and animal protection groups worldwide which oppose the seal hunt, including The Humane Society of the United States, which has more than nine million members. Mrs. Kangas added: "With the worldwide boycott of Canadian seafood, the television coverage of baby seals being clubbed to death for their pelts, and the involvement of high-profile celebrities such as Heather and Paul McCartney and Bridget Bardot, one would think that Stephen Harper would welcome an economic solution to the seal hunt. We are willing to negotiate in good faith. However, should he choose to ignore my letter and continue with the hunt, we need to ask the world what it will take for Canada to end this barbaric practice." Cathy Kangas has championed animal welfare issues for more than twenty years. She presently serves on the Regional Council of IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) and as an advisor to HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). As CEO and Founder of PRAI Beauty, a global skin and beauty care company sold through the Internet and home shopping networks, she created "Beauty With A Cause." Under this program, her company contributes a portion of its proceeds every month to a different animal protection organization. Among the many animal protection organizations supported by Ms. Kangas through PRAI Beauty are: Animals Asia, which seeks to end the slaughter of cats and dogs in China for food; IFAW for the campaign to save the whales; Save the Chimps, which provides a sanctuary for chimps formerly used by the US Air Force; The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee; the United Pegasus Foundation for retired racehorses; the Wolf Conservation Center, Best Friends in Utah, the largest animal sanctuary in the world; and SPANA, which cares for working animals worldwide. A copy of Mrs. Kangas' letter to Prime Minister Harper is below. March 21, 2006 The Right Honourable Stephen Harper Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada, KIA O42 Dear Prime Minister Harper: Your government has repeatedly stated that the $16 million realized from the slaughter of Canadian baby seals is vital to the fishing communities of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland. If you stop this year's hunt immediately, we will provide you with this $16 million to be distributed at your discretion. Furthermore, we will work with your government to institute a program to buy back the fishing licenses and begin a program of eco-tourism in Northeastern Canada, which would replace the seal hunt. Through this program, high-end tour companies - such as Abercrombie & Kent - would provide opportunities for its customers to see the beautiful spectacle of seals giving birth on the ice floes. This could be a whole new source of revenue for the region and fishermen could serve as Park Rangers showing the seals and protecting them. The eyes of the world will be on Canada when the seal hunt begins. We are providing you with an alternative to what Paul McCartney called "a stain on the character of the Canadian people." If this is really simply an economic problem, then take our offer. The money is being raised from animal protection groups worldwide, including The Humane Society of the United States - which alone has more than 9 million members. We are asking you to negotiate with us in good faith. If we do not hear back from your office before the start of the hunt, we will have no other choice than to take this offer to the Canadian and worldwide media. We are providing the Canadian government with an opportunity to end the seal hunt and provide fishermen with an alternative livelihood. We look forward to discussing this offer with you. Sincerely, Cathy Kangas --- > How does one collect the white fur from the moultling seal pups? Read the article you snipped.
From: David Johnston on 13 Mar 2007 12:59 On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:09:28 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: >"David Johnston" <david(a)block.net> wrote in message news:bsfbv2t0p6uivoo2vj22hreg6a615j04ls(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:50:55 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> >> wrote: >... >> >A colleague asks: "If children weren't meant to be eaten, >> >then why are they made out of meat?" Answer please.. >> >> Children are unsuitable for human consumption because cannibalism >> leads to the development of prion diseases. > >Eating infected animals certainly can. Oh they don't have to be "infected". Prion diseases arise spontaneously when you engage in cannibalism.
From: 10x on 13 Mar 2007 20:29
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:57:30 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> wrote: ><10x(a)telu�s.net> wrote in message news:5bgdv2l0697am0285lckpq17b6djr5h09r(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:52:15 -0000, "pearl" <tea(a)signguestbook.ie> >> wrote: >.. >> >> >Stop pretending that this slaughter is about real need and survival. >> >> >> >> So if the "slaugter" is stopped how do these folks get enough money to >> >> survive? WHat replaces the seal meat? >> > >> >Three things have been suggested: a. continue to receive state >> >welfare payments for those two weeeks, b. eco-tourism, and, >> >c. collecting seal pups' moulting white fur for warm bedding. >> >> I would strongly suggest those opposed to the seal hunt contribute >> their disposable income towards the welfare of the seal hunters so >> they don't have to kill seals for income. > >You do know that you were offered $16m last year to cancel >this "hunt", and that it was rejected by your prime minister? And rightly so, the prime minister does not hunt seals nor does he take bribes from special interest groups. Maybe the 16 millions should have been offered directly to the seal hunters? >> As for ecotourism, that is laugable. Would you pay several thousand >> dollars a day to pet a baby seal and risk getting bitten? >> There isn't a market for this is there? > >'Canadian government rejects $16 million to end seal hunt > >Connecticut Businesswoman Makes $16 Million Offer to >Canadian Prime Minister to End Slaughter of Canadian >Baby Seals Once again the Canadian Prime Minister can not accept money for something that he doesn't do. Well, a liberal prime minister might... take the � out of 10x(a)telu�s.net to email me |