Do we ignore animal cruelty to suit us?

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Someone with an attitude like this would more correctly be called a "loony bin", because of its utter irrationally.

So vegetable oils are un-natural, hummm... You do realise cooking food is also un-natural and it is impossible for a human to survive without cooking their food, be that animal or vegetable. Wearing clothes is also un-natural, I suppose you go through life naked, what about life saving medical interventions?
Fact is we left quite a lot behind us and added many others that could be called un-natural, cherry picking for the sake of argument doesn't quite cut it.
We do not have to eat meat in order to survive or keep healthy, this is physiological fact regarding the species named Homo Sapiens.

Are you back to your irrational argument about insects and rats again :rolleyes:
So someone goes through life killing insects and rats, or bacteria with antibiotics, give me one rational reason (just one will do) why they SHOULD add cows, sheep etc to the list.

So, what?

You go on about people having the morals of a five year old, yet insulting people you disagree with is the action of a five year old.

Thinking someone is mad because they don't eat meat is the attitude of a very naive and quite delusional person who needs to get out more and experience a bit more of the world. Not meaning to insult but these are facts, as there is no rationality behind such an attitude.

We have been cooking food for at least 100,000 years. Until about a hundred years ago, extracting oils from seeds and vegetables was not possible, therefore was not a viable food for humans for most of our existence.

We don't need meat to survive (to keep healthy, now that's debatable) but we do need animal products (eggs, milk etc..) to get Vitamin B12, deficiencies of which lead to brain shrinkage and death. This is excluding supplements, which again, humans haven't been able to eat for most of our existence.

You still haven't answered my question about deer culling. I didn't expect you to, I'm used to hysterical vegetarians ignoring the hard questions about their beliefs

cosmicfart

Don't kid yourself, Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!

Noreen1

I'm neither a farmer nor hunter, though I do come from a farming background, and have raised pigs (2) for slaughter.

That video was horrible.
However, I don't believe that was a typical slaughter, as in slaughter for food. It seemed more like a disease control cull. That doesn't excuse the suffering endured by the animals, though.
Having said that, cows do not normally lie on top of one another, as seen in the video, which would suggest that these animals were already suffering.
The question is, could we find a more humane method of killing them?

I'm amazed at the "Black or White" responses here.
As uncomfortable as that video made me feel, I watched it a couple of times, and I've come to the conclusion that the particular method of killing used there can be either humane, or incredibly cruel.
The first few animals appear to have died instantly - I say that because I don't know enough about the level of awareness of the animals, and over what time frame, before they have any more ability to feel pain, ie just because the animal is unable to move doesn't mean it cannot feel - so I have to go with the best scientific evidence available, until/if something else is proven.

Compare this with some of the animals at the end of that video - they're kicking, seem to be trying to get up - in short, appear (to me, at least) to have "awareness" of what is going on.
If I've judged that correctly - and I'm basing that opinion on having spent my entire life around a range of animals, not on any scientific /medical training - then that's a horrible way to slaughter any animal.

The question for me is, if all the animals die instantly, why do the animals react so differently?

Is it not possible that a minute miscalculation about the size of the bolt used, or a sudden movement by the animal at the last minute can cause the bolt to miss the exact nerve centre?
If that is the case, the pain suffered must be unimaginable.:eek:

I also don't understand the bile spewn at hunters.
I despise people who hunt for "fun". It's barbaric.
I fully support banning foxhunting.
On the other hand, I live in the country, and I also support shooting foxes as a method of culling where there are problems with overpopulation. Better a quick bullet than a slow starvation, infested with parasites, as often as not.

Neither do I have a problem with people hunting for food.
A well placed shot will kill an animal instantly. Therefore there is no suffering involved, when the hunter in question is capable, and ethical.

In other words, it's not black and white. Some hunters do actually have a genuine concern for animal welfare, despite what some posters here would like to believe. Others, frankly, have no regard for the animals they kill.
All in all, hunters are like any other group of humans - they are all individuals, with all the character differences that that implies.

Things are rarely black and white - to improve things, sometimes we need to find the grey areas, then see how we can improve things.

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

So, what?

Well in Europe at least the ecosystem has adapted to farming, so removing large chunks of animals from that ecosystem would likely be disastrous with unforeseen knock on effects. Intensive farming is already ruing this ecosystem but if humans where to stop eating their domestic animals (essentially wiping them out) it could do a lot of damage, just look what the fluffy bunny rabbit and toad did to Australia, with the best of intentions they caused massive unforeseen damage.

Cú Giobach

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

We have been cooking food for at least 100,000 years. Until about a hundred years ago, extracting oils from seeds and vegetables was not possible, therefore was not a viable food for humans for most of our existence.
We don't need meat to survive (to keep healthy, now that's debatable) but we do need animal products (eggs, milk etc..) to get Vitamin B12, deficiencies of which lead to brain shrinkage and death. This is excluding supplements, which again, humans haven't been able to eat for most of our existence.

(Egg, milk etc are not meat, I am talking about meat eating.)
Maybe some actual facts might help you here. Vegetarianism has been around for thousands and thousands of years in an unbroken line, it is not unhealthy.
Vegetarianism.

The term vegetarian was coined in 1847 by the founders of the Vegetarian Society of Great Britain, but vegetarianism has been around as long as people have created diets. Some of the world's oldest cultures advocate a vegetarian diet for health and religious purposes. In India, millions of Hindus are vegetarians because of their religious beliefs. One of the ancient mythological works of Hinduism, the Mahabharata, states that, "Those who desire to possess good memory, beauty, long life with perfect health, and physical, moral and spiritual strength, should abstain from animal foods." The yoga system of living and health is vegetarian, because its dietary practices are based on the belief that healthy food contains prana. Prana is the universal life energy, which yoga experts believe is abundant in fresh fruits, grains, nuts and vegetables, but absent in meat because meat has been killed. Yogis also believe that spiritual health is influenced by the practice of ahimsa, or not harming living beings. The principle of ahimsa (non-violence) appears in the Upanishads (Vedic literature) from c. 600-300 b.c. Taking of animal life or human life under any circumstances is sinful and results in rebirth as a lower organism. It became a fundamental element of Jainism, another religion of India. Some Buddhists in Japan and China are also vegetarian because of spiritual beliefs. In the Christian tradition, the Trappist Monks of the Catholic Church are vegetarian, and some vegetarians argue that there is evidence that Jesus and his early followers were vegetarian. Other traditional cultures, such as those in the Middle East and the Mediterranean regions, have evolved diets that frequently consist of vegetarian foods. The Mediterranean diet, which a Harvard study declared to be one of the world's healthiest, is primarily, although not strictly, vegetarian.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question about deer culling. I didn't expect you to, I'm used to hysterical vegetarians ignoring the hard questions about their beliefs

1. You didn't ask me that question, I also gave my attitudes on hunting earlier in the thread.
2. I am not a vegetarian.
3. Defending the rational from the irrational is not being hysterical.

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

Well in Europe at least the ecosystem has adapted to farming, so removing large chunks of animals from that ecosystem would likely be disastrous with unforeseen knock on effects. Intensive farming is already ruing this ecosystem but if humans where to stop eating their domestic animals (essentially wiping them out) it could do a lot of damage, just look what the fluffy bunny rabbit and toad did to Australia, with the best of intentions they caused massive unforeseen damage.

Without human intervention here, most of the land would revert to forest.
I have seen many examples of where cattle or sheep have been removed from the land, there are examples all over the country for various reasons, they all become areas full of native wildlife and plants and are some of the most wonderful places to live I have ever come across on this island.
I only visited a friend last week who took over around 50 acres 20 years ago, the only thing he has done to the land is plant numerous native species of trees, it is an utterly amazing place.
Your comparison with the introduction of rabbits to Australia is amusing and quite wrong.

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Without human intervention here, most of the land would revert to forest.
I have seen many examples of where cattle or sheep have been removed from the land, there are examples all over the country for various reasons, they all become areas full of native wildlife and plants and are some of the most wonderful places to live I have ever come across on this island.
I only visited a friend last week who took over around 50 acres 20 years ago, the only thing he has done to the land is plant numerous native species of trees, it is an utterly amazing place.
Your comparison with the introduction of rabbits to Australia is amusing and quite wrong.

It's not because your still displaying the same naivety, that being we could simply remove or introduce species to and from the ecosystem and everything would be just fine and dandy, the fact is the wild animals have adapted to human farming cycles, I'm fairly certain I've heard of wild species already coming under treat in Europe due to the move towards more industrial farming.

--Kaiser--

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Without human intervention here, most of the land would revert to forest.
I have seen many examples of where cattle or sheep have been removed from the land, there are examples all over the country for various reasons, they all become areas full of native wildlife and plants and are some of the most wonderful places to live I have ever come across on this island.
I only visited a friend last week who took over around 50 acres 20 years ago, the only thing he has done to the land is plant numerous native species of trees, it is an utterly amazing place.
Your comparison with the introduction of rabbits to Australia is amusing and quite wrong.

Deluded again. You think nature would all live happily ever after? Without human intervention animals ( deer in particular) would overbreed, run riot and chew vegetation (including young trees) to ****. Their natural predators (wolves) were eradicated a long time ago so these animals have no natural predators. Part of a job of a forest ranger is to cull animals who are breeding to excess. Sorry to shatter your naive little myth (not sorry)

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not because your still displaying the same naivety, that being we could simply remove or introduce species to and from the ecosystem and everything would be just fine and dandy, the fact is the wild animals have adapted to human farming cycles, I'm fairly certain I've heard of wild species already coming under treat in Europe due to the move towards more industrial farming.

With all due respect you're not being very rational here, how can you compare areas destroyed by industrial farming to areas where domestic animals are removed and left to go wild
In the hypothetical situation where all domestic animals were to disappear from this island, the wildlife would have a proverbial "field day", they do not rely on us and our animals to survive and prosper, we are not essential to the workings of this planet.

Cú Giobach

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Deluded again. You think nature would all live happily ever after? Without human intervention animals ( deer in particular) would overbreed, run riot and chew vegetation (including young trees) to ****. Their natural predators (wolves) were eradicated a long time ago so these animals have no natural predators. Part of a job of a forest ranger is to cull animals who are breeding to excess. Sorry to shatter your naive little myth (not sorry)

Sure if we were to go to the trouble of getting rid of all our domestic animals and the changes that would mean to the countryside why not reintroduce wolves?

If you could find a post in this forum where I said I was against deer culling I would be most interested. Are you actually capable of rational debate?

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

With all due respect you're not being very rational here, how can you compare areas destroyed by industrial farming to areas where domestic animals are removed and left to go wild
In the hypothetical situation where all domestic animals were to disappear from this island, the wildlife would have a proverbial "field day", they do not rely on us and our animals to survive and prosper, we are not essential to the workings of this planet.

I don't think it would be a "field day" there would be chaos as animals try to find new niches, Some wild plants would take over areas possibly choking out other species of plants in the process. It may happen like you say but just about every other time we've tried to make great changes to an ecosystem it's always caused huge unforeseen problems.

We are not essential to life on earth but we are a huge part of ecosystems all over the world, people don't seem to recognise that. We are part of nature we can't just step back and remove ourselves from our place.

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think it would be a "field day" there would be chaos as animals try to find new niches, Some wild plants would take over areas possibly choking out other species of plants in the process. It may happen like you say but just about every other time we've tried to make great changes to an ecosystem it's always caused huge unforeseen problems.

When land in Ireland is unfarmed or untended it reverts to temperate broadleaf forest with the associated eco-systems.
If you live in the country surely you have seen areas abandoned by people and how native species of flora take over very quickly, followed rapidly by the fauna, there is no chaos.
Anyway since nobody is advocating any such changes I don't see the point of this, all I said was, so what if cows disappeared?, we would still have to farm the land to grow food (make money).

We are not essential to life on earth but we are a huge part of ecosystems all over the world, people don't seem to recognise that. We are part of nature we can't just step back and remove ourselves from our place.

Nobody here seems to be doing that.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

...why not reintroduce wolves?

Because Wolves will be concerned about humainly killing humans?

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

When land in Ireland is unfarmed or untended it reverts to temperate broadleaf forest with the associated eco-systems.
If you live in the country surely you have seen areas abandoned by people and how native species of flora take over very quickly, followed rapidly by the fauna, there is no chaos.

I do live in the countryside and I have seen plots chocked by weeds to the point nothing could even walk through and a minority of plant variety could compete, it all depends on the area though.

Would a viable broad leaf forest pop up rapidly? I would have thought a broad leaf forest would take a decade or more to establish itself. You'll have a period when the environment will be in transition, really your talking about moving through 3 different environments, as it is now, the transition period and then an established forest which would kill anything that was growing in the meantime. So animals would have to adapt 3 times due to one change. It could very well mean the loss of a few species and that's across the board loss, plants and animals.

It's very hard to know though, you just can't say either way what will happen but going on past experience it more than likely will surprise us in some way that could take further decades to fully realise. I wonder how our vegetation would react to the sudden loss of livestock manure after thousands of years of it being there?

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

Because Wolves will be concerned about humainly killing humans?

To continue the off-topic line.....
Wolf attacks on humans.

A reasonable source for information is the world-wide study of wolf attacks on humans done by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) in 2002. The finding of the report was that during the 100 years of the 20th century there were between twenty and thirty attacks in North America (including Alaska and Canada, which have relatively high populations of wolves). Of these, three were fatal, all because of rabies. No attacks have been recorded in Yellowstone since the reintroduction of wolves more than a decade ago

3 deaths in 100 years, highly dangerous animals those wolves.

Zulu

You know the difference in population density of Yellowstone park, against, say, swords? Right??

But no, you're right. Re-introduce the wolf to Ireland to keep deer populations in check - great idea.

Cú Giobach

ScumLord wrote: »

I do live in the countryside and I have seen plots chocked by weeds to the point nothing could even walk through and a minority of plant variety could compete, it all depends on the area though.

Would a viable broad leaf forest pop up rapidly? I would have thought a broad leaf forest would take a decade or more to establish itself. You'll have a period when the environment will be in transition, really your talking about moving through 3 different environments, as it is now, the transition period and then an established forest which would kill anything that was growing in the meantime. So animals would have to adapt 3 times due to one change. It could very well mean the loss of a few species and that's across the board loss, plants and animals.

It's very hard to know though, you just can't say either way what will happen but going on past experience it more than likely will surprise us in some way that could take further decades to fully realise.

It would take a lot more than 10 years.
Our native wildlife wouldn't have to adapt to anything, how much wildlife do you see living in (not just crossing) open grass fields, they are a virtual desert bereft of wildlife, the wildlife is based in hedgerows and wooded areas, ie little bits of wilderness. .

I wonder how our vegetation would react to the sudden loss of livestock manure after thousands of years of it being there?

Come on now, I'm looking out my window typing this and the only place where there is cow sh*t is on the desert of a grass field, there is none in the hedgerows or wooded areas full of plants trees and animals.

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

You know the difference in population density of Yellowstone park, against, say, swords? Right??
But no, you're right. Re-introduce the wolf to Ireland to keep deer populations in check - great idea.

No, culling is a better option. Big deer problem in swords is there? :rolleyes:

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Come on now, I'm looking out my window typing this and the only place where there is cow sh*t is on the desert of a grass field, there is none in the hedgerows or wooded areas full of plants trees and animals.

You don't have to put manure directly on a patch of grass for it to affect that patch of grass.

The eco-system is a chain of interlinking factors. Nutrients in the soil in one area can have an indirect, but nonetheless important, impact on the vegetation in another area.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

No, culling is a better option. Big deer problem in swords is there? :rolleyes:

At least we're agreed, culling is a better option.
As for swords having a big deer problem, not really. But are you suggesting that those wolves you wanted to reintroduce won't roam? That they'll stay in the nice little coilte forests scattered around the country? Because to suggest that would be really fu(king stupid.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

You don't have to put manure directly on a patch of grass for it to affect that patch of grass.

The eco-system is a chain of interlinking factors. Nutrients in the soil in one area can have an indirect, but nonetheless important, impact on the vegetation in another area.

Hedgerows and woods do not rely on manure from cattle to grow and thrive.

Zulu wrote: »

At least we're agreed, culling is a better option.
As for swords having a big deer problem, not really. But are you suggesting that those wolves you wanted to reintroduce won't roam? That they'll stay in the nice little coilte forests scattered around the country? Because to suggest that would be really fu(king stupid.

I don't wan't to introduce wolves.
If you took the time to read properly you would have seen it was a throw away comment in a hypothetical situation where practically all the land of Ireland was unfarmed and menaced by millions of wild rampaging deer, not a likely scenario.
Fu*cking got it?

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Hedgerows and woods do not rely on manure from cattle to grow and thrive.

I never said they did, but any change in any environment in the national ecosystem could impact other environments in unpredictable ways.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I don't wan't to introduce wolves.

Make up your mind!

ScumLord

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Hedgerows and woods do not rely on manure from cattle to grow and thrive.

You seem quite certain of that, how could the hedgerows and forests not be influenced by the fields that surround them on all sides?

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

Make up your mind!

Try reading the thread. :rolleyes:

ScumLord wrote: »

You seem quite certain of that, how could the hedgerows and forests not be influenced by the fields that surround them on all sides?

Of course I am, because I have seen areas all over this island where there is no cattle farming and the flora in these areas, my earlier mentioned friends 50 acres for example, it has changed from an utter desert of cow and sheep fields to a verdant mixture of forest and meadow, with an abundance of wildlife, not a touch of cow sh*t for 20 years.
Manure is not necessary because all the nutrients needed can come from the death and decay of other plants, that is how forests work.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Manure is not necessary because all the nutrients needed can come from the death and decay of other plants, that is how forests work.

Nobody suggested manure was necessary, the point being made is that manure is used and if we cease to use it that will result in a change in the ecosystem. That change is ultimately unpredictable and while it could be beneficial or neutral it could also be dire to both the ecosystem and the economy.

No one here can say for sure, but the fact remains stating it wouldn't have much of an impact is naive.

Zulu

Cú Giobach wrote: »

...why not reintroduce wolves?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Try reading the thread. :rolleyes:

We're all reading it, & all reading your glib comments. Less of the :rolleyes:, and glib, and more rational debate please.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

Nobody suggested manure was necessary, the point being made is that manure is used and if we cease to use it that will result in a change in the ecosystem. That change is ultimately unpredictable and while it could be beneficial or neutral it could also be dire to both the ecosystem and the economy.
No one here can say for sure, but the fact remains stating it wouldn't have much of an impact is naive.

This has gone so far off topic and stupid it's unreal.
The biggest effect of not spreading manure could well be a dramatic increase of water quality.
Speaking of impact, the impact of not grazing the land would far outweigh any missing cow sh*t, it's not just the sh*t that would be gone, thats why this has gone a bit stupid. If cattle disappeared tomorrow everything would change utterly, sh*t or no sh*t.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This has gone so far off topic and stupid it's unreal.

I agree, you're still making "truistic" claims about unpredictable consequences.

Cú Giobach

Zulu wrote: »

We're all reading it, & all reading your glib comments. Less of the :rolleyes:, and glib, and more rational debate please.

Less of the selective quoting please, this is what I said

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sure if we were to go to the trouble of getting rid of all our domestic animals and the changes that would mean to the countryside why not reintroduce wolves?

Not exactly me wanting to introduce wolves into the Ireland of today is it,
and that was in response to someone saying if we got rid of all our large herbivores that prevent forests from growing we would be overrun with large herbivores preventing our forests from growing.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

I agree, you're still making "truistic" claims about unpredictable consequences.

Over the last 30 years I have seen friends turning large areas of west cork into practical nature reserves and not one of them relies on cow sh*t, nor does the lack of the stuff have a detrimental effect on the land, the nitrogen cycle still works perfectly well here without cattle even after years of cattle farming.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Over the last 30 years I have seen friends turning large areas of west cork into practical nature reserves and not one of them relies on cow sh*t, nor does the lack of the stuff have a detrimental effect on the land, the nitrogen cycle still works perfectly well here without cattle even after years of cattle farming.

And while that's fantastic I don't really care, it's not relevant.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

And while that's fantastic I don't really care, it's not relevant.

So mentioning areas that have turned from cattle farms into natural woodland isn't relevant in a discussion about cattle farms turning into natural woodland.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

So mentioning areas that have turned from cattle farms into natural woodland isn't relevant in a discussion about cattle farms turning into natural woodland.

Different scales. Anecdotal evidence. Inductive reasoning.

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

Different scales. Anecdotal evidence. Inductive reasoning.

There isn't some magical component of manure, it is just putting nutrients back into the soil after cutting or grazing, something that is also done by death and decay if the land isn't cut or grazed.
This isn't a science class and I don't have to show proof that land left to its own devices will in most parts of Ireland explode into life, whether or not cow sh*t is or has ever been present, something any person can see with a walk in the country.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This isn't a science class and I don't have to show proof that land left to its own devices will in most parts of Ireland explode into life

You have to prove that this change in the environment won't result in negative consequences in the environment.

You assume it won't, your assumptions are naive.

CruelCoin

The video highlights one example of cruelty.

Don't paint us all with the same brush.

I smell a ninja veggi-nazi

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

You have to prove that this change in the environment won't result in negative consequences in the environment.

No I don't, Because I never stated any such thing, the reason being we are talking about a hypothetical total and utter change to the land the results of which nobody can predict and ones man's negative is anothers positive, BUT what I am stating is that here, land left to its own devices would turn for the most part into Broadleaf forest with the resultant eco-systems, and that cow sh*t is not necessary for that.

You assume it won't, your assumptions are naive.

I am assuming nothing except what I said above.

You keep stating I am making certain claims but if you re-read the discussion you will see I am not, you are pulling them out of your own head.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

BUT what I am stating is that here, land left to its own devices would turn for the most part into Broadleaf forest with the resultant eco-systems,

The problem is this is not necessarily the case. The environment has changed, by removing the changing factor you're assuming it would go back to it's original form. There's no guarantee of that. We forced a change on the ecosystem and undoing that change isn't as simple as eliminating cattle.

You keep stating I am making certain claims but if you re-read the discussion you will see I am not, you are pulling them out of your own head.

The biggest effect of not spreading manure could well be a dramatic increase of water quality.
Speaking of impact, the impact of not grazing the land would far outweigh any missing cow sh*t

You have "could" in the first line there which makes the point irrelevant but the fact you made the point means you presumably think it's relevant. And the second line is a specific claim.

doctor evil

Cú Giobach wrote: »

When land in Ireland is unfarmed or untended it reverts to temperate broadleaf forest with the associated eco-systems.
If you live in the country surely you have seen areas abandoned by people and how native species of flora take over very quickly, followed rapidly by the fauna, there is no chaos.
Anyway since nobody is advocating any such changes I don't see the point of this, all I said was, so what if cows disappeared?, we would still have to farm the land to grow food (make money).

Nobody here seems to be doing that.

You are forgetting invasive species of animal and fauna (rhodedendrum, japanese knotweed, zebra mussel, mink etc), these will cause even more havoc in any model of management if ignored.

Icyseanfitz

do those guns kill the animal outright? or is it the yoke they stick into the head that kills them? if its the latter then yeah thats horrible and shouldnt be allowed, if the gun does kill them outright then i see no big problem as it would be quick and painless way to kill the animal, everyone has to eat sure

Cú Giobach

Seachmall wrote: »

The problem is this is not necessarily the case. The environment has changed, by removing the changing factor you're assuming it would go back to it's original form. There's no guarantee of that. We forced a change on the ecosystem and undoing that change isn't as simple as eliminating cattle.

It's nothing to do with what was here, it is about living at this latitude with this climate, the result of untouched land here (for the most part) is forest, specifically what is known as deciduous broadleaf forest.
Go outside and look at a patch of land untouched for 20-30 years.

You have "could" in the first line there which makes the point irrelevant but the fact you made the point means you presumably think it's relevant.

Yea, well it could.

And the second line is a specific claim.

And?

You see, I never stated what you keep claiming I did (otherwise you would have mentioned it).

Cú Giobach

doctor evil wrote: »

You are forgetting invasive species of animal and fauna (rhodedendrum, japanese knotweed, zebra mussel, mink etc), these will cause even more havoc in any model of management if ignored.

Believe me, I do not forget about them, especially fu*king rhodedendrum, I spend half my summer keeping one at bay.

bbam

Our meat has to come from somewhere...
Slaughterhouses have to exist to regulate the humane slaughter of animals... properly run houses are way better than letting every tom,dick or harry whack animals out the back of their house...

A previous poster stated that we shouldn't be doing this as we are only animals ourselves... Fine, but what is the difference in us killing and eating meat and a lion or tiger killing and eating meat....

Humans have killed and consumed meat for millions of years... Our current practices are probably the best there have been..

Not everyone has the stomach to farm, kill or butcher animals. Most people not involved in the process don't understand what is good practice, just because you don't like the look of something doesn't mean it is wrong or cruelty.

ItsAWindUp

bbam wrote: »

Our meat has to come from somewhere...
Slaughterhouses have to exist to regulate the humane slaughter of animals... properly run houses are way better than letting every tom,dick or harry whack animals out the back of their house...

A previous poster stated that we shouldn't be doing this as we are only animals ourselves... Fine, but what is the difference in us killing and eating meat and a lion or tiger killing and eating meat....

Humans have killed and consumed meat for millions of years... Our current practices are probably the best there have been..

Not everyone has the stomach to farm, kill or butcher animals. Most people not involved in the process don't understand what is good practice, just because you don't like the look of something doesn't mean it is wrong or cruelty.

Because we can live healthily without killing and eating meat.

Seachmall

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It's nothing to do with what was here, it is about living at this latitude with this climate, the result of untouched land here (for the most part) is forest, specifically what is known as deciduous broadleaf forest.
Go outside and look at a patch of land untouched for 20-30 years.

An untouched patch of land is irrelevant.

The presence of manure and grazing in certain areas obviously caused a change in the otherwise natural habitat.

Other bacteria, animals and plant life may have flourished in the new habitat.

Those new organisms have found niches. Other organisms have found niches in the presence of those organisms and so on.

Reversing the original changes and removing manure and grazing is no guarantee that the habitat will go back to the way it was. We don't know how the changes have affected the wider ecosystem, nor do we know how removing the initial causes for change will affect it.

Nothing in an ecosystem is independent of anything else. Everything plays it's role and if you remove it it will have a knock on effect. We can't calculate the extent of that knock-on. It could do more damage than good, it could do more good than damage or it could be essentially neutral. We don't know.

Yea, well it could.

And it could result in the extinction of certain species of plant in certain areas. Anything "could" happen. Your claims are all "possibilities" which are irrelevant, "probabilities" are what matter. "Probabilities" require evidence.

And?

You see, I never stated what you keep claiming I did (otherwise you would have mentioned it).

I'm claiming that you're making claims about how the environment would be affected. Which you did.

bbam

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Because we can live healthily without killing and eating meat.

That's doubtful indeed...
But we want to eat meat, I like eating most meats, I want to eat it every day, that's my choice to make....

So, what is the alternative to regulated, certified farming, slaughter and butchering of animals ?

softmee

bbam wrote: »

I want to eat it every day

I wish you good health

ItsAWindUp

bbam wrote: »

That's doubtful indeed...
But we want to eat meat, I like eating most meats, I want to eat it every day, that's my choice to make....

So, what is the alternative to regulated, certified farming, slaughter and butchering of animals ?

Not doubtful, proven. The alternative to slaughtering and butchering animals? Not slaughtering and butchering animals.

bbam

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

The alternative to slaughtering and butchering animals? Not slaughtering and butchering animals.

Right, I see your powers of reasoning are in top tune :rolleyes:
Grow up.. I'm not saying your choice is wrong, am I not entitled to make an informed decision to eat meat..