Comments meadow20 has made

  • hunting

    As I recall, about a millionanimals are slaughtered for food every day in the US. There are about 30 million white tailed deer. If everyone switched to venison but ate the same amount of meat, deer would be extinct in mere months. (assuming they could all be found and killed)On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months ago 33 Responses

  • it can be said, but that doesn't make it true

    I have no idea what "biodynamic" farming does that is different from the ranching I see. You can say there will be no erosion and that the landscape will be enhanced, but what is done differently that makes these things happen? The only thing I can think of that would work is fewer cattle for a shorter time which is simply not economically viable.
    Grazed grass if grazed too far, has shorter tap roots which means it is weakened and less drought tolerant. Then you get a bare dirt patch which begins to erode away when the rain comes. In the west, the biggest source of non-point water pollution is cattle on the range which have fouled pristine waters all over the Rockies.
       I don't know one rancher who won't take a subsidy if its offered. The government is still enemy though- no doubt about that. Moreover, the western ranches are too far from viable markets to sell direct and they must sell to factory feedlots.On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 33 Responses

  • land isn't always suitable for livestock

     In the arid west, cattle grazing is very destructive even in grasslands. The number of cattle has to be consistent for the rancher to make money which means drought years are grazed as intensively as wet ones. (in nature, the herd would die out or reproduce less in drought) Perennial grasses get replaced by annual ones, toxic and/or woody vegetation begins to take over, and erosion and soil loss increase- sometimes irreversibly so and grasslands convert to desert. Cattle don't graze like migratory bison which move on as they eat. Cattle hang out in streams and eat everything there before moving to drier areas which ruins the stream for all the other creatures that depend on it.
      I live in the heart of ranch country and I concluded long ago that the more of us who stop eating meat, the better off the planet will be. On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 33 Responses

  • calories and waste

    From the photo, it looks to me like cutting down on caloric intake would not be out of order. But I don't get that comment about caloric intake and expense anyway. There are plenty of calories in vegetables and grains that are very inexpensive. Its the meat that kills the wallet. (the reason its so expensive is all the waste inherent in its production which makes it a little ironic that this butcher prides himself on not wasting anything.)On Getting to the meat of the matter with Boston chef Jamie Bissonnette posted 1 year, 3 months ago 21 Responses

  • I vote for leaving out the chorizo

    You won't miss it if it isn't there, it will still taste great and be just as nutritious and cheaper and environmentally responsible!On How author Betsy Block convinced her finicky family to mend their dietary ways posted 1 year, 4 months ago 25 Responses

  • the program must change

    What is happening now is not working. Wolves are not being allowed to be themselves and it is all because of cattle. When ranchers get all the perks of public wild land, they need to accept that there will be predators. If they can't or won't look after their cows- like having a range rider who knows where they are, keeping them together, moving them frequently and rendering carcasses that perish from other causes inedible so wolves don't get a taste for beef- then it is not the wolves' fault if some get eaten. (Actually, with a range rider it is much less likely that cattle would perish from other causes because someone would be looking after them)
       U.S. Fish and Wildlife has to stop "removing" wolves or wolves will disappear a second time. Don't just comment here. Send an email here, r2fwe_al@fws.gov and make it count.

    Amen about trapsOn Gray wolves in Southwest aren't faring well posted 1 year, 12 months ago 6 Responses

  • its a myth

    Having some experience with my state's game and fish department, from my view most of the money from hunting licenses goes to pay for department infrastructure- buildings, vehicles, salaries- and not that much for habitat.  I live in the west and most of the habitat is on public land already. A small portion of the hunting license fees goes to pay for "habitat improvement". Where I live, I know of four such projects. All involve water catchment and as far as I can tell, only one works. Whether or not that one will result in one single extra animal being born or surviving to grow up is doubtful.
       Hunters agreed at the turn of the century that market hunting was decimating wildlife populations and by controlling that and placing bag limits on themselves, that went a long way to saving game. But even today, while mule deer populations are declining everywhere, licenses to kill them continue to be sold. Our game department is also especially hard on predators and those numbers are also below what the habitat could support. Habitat continues to deteriorate from fire supression, overgrazing, climate change and so on and hunters dollars aren't really addressing that either.On Less hunters mean less funding for conservation, states find posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

  • reason not to kill

    I live in NM and in addition to the real possibility of hanta virus which is spread by mouse droppings, there is also the potential for mice to be carrying bubonic plague. This is spread by fleas. If the mouse dies in your house, when the body temperature drops, all those fleas will jump off and look for a new host- maybe you!
      I don't mind relocating rodents even if they have a tough time. You could look at it like a juvenile raptor supplemental feeding program. Yes it may be harsh, but that is life for mice in the wild- relocated or not. On Umbra on live trapping posted 2 years, 1 month ago 28 Responses

  • the energy used, the pollution generated

    No one has yet remarked on how environmentally destructive meat eating is. Something like 80% of the crops grown in the US which are edible by people are fed to livestock and most of that is lost to pollution in the form of ammonia, methane and other green house gases and water pollutants. So much so that to get a pound of edible meat from cattle, 6 pounds of edible grain have to be fed to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of gallons of water to grow that grain. What a horrible waste. The truth is the earth isn't physically big enough to feed every person on it a meat, animal based diet. It probably isn't big enough to feed that to the people who are now eating one and we are all suffering the consequences of water shortage, pollution, species extinction, and habitat loss. When you purchase and eat meat, you are essentially saying yes- I approve of all the waste and destruction, do it some more.On On the difficulties of going veggie posted 2 years, 4 months ago 65 Responses

  • you forgot this!

    a portabello mushroom basted with a terriaki marinade while grilling is just burger patty size and tender,juicy and delicious with all the burger trimmings. Also grilled kabobs with marinated vegetables like bell peppers, mushrooms, onions and pinneapple are great too. Add some chunky fake chicken if you like.On A guide to grilling without red meat posted 2 years, 5 months ago 17 Responses