Nation of meat eating animal lovers?

[spoffle]

What utter rubbish.

Do you have any idea how supply & demand works?, the vegan/vegetarian population will decrease the demand for meat by the percentage roughly equal that of their size.

On average the choice to not eat meat or eggs saves at least 200 animals per year (based on the averages across species, mostly fish - prawns & chicken, with a few of larger farm animals.).

It's not utter rubbish at all. Your stance as a vegan is clouding your judgement, as you want to believe that you're saving animals by choosing not to eat them.

I'm talking on an individual level. If a million people decided to become vegans in the UK overnight, then in time, yes it would have an impact. However I'm talking about the OP and his choice not to eat animals, his specific choice isn't going to save animals.

The same way that if I start buying more meat than I usually do, more animals aren't going to die proportionally to the amount more meat I'm buying.

But as I said, you're a vegan and you clearly can't or won't accept that your personal actions don't actually save animals, it only works on a collective basis if there are enough people participating.

Either that, or you've just derped and haven't understood the point.

 

[Amp34]

It's all relevant so you can read it all

But it is of little relevance to the latest studies and culls... Cherrypicking out of date papers is not binding evidence, even if some of it is actually still accurate.

Same applies for badgers

Except there are less badgers and they have significantly less impact on the natural environment. Partly because they have been persecuted for hundreds of years by, you guessed it.... Farmers... It's why they were put on the protected species list 20 years ago!

So are you telling us you do not like our British countryside then seeing as its been managed for hundreds of years.

I like some of it, however the suggestion that we have "wild" places in the UK is false. It's also a prime example of why "farmers know best" is a huge fallacy. They don't and our countryside is a prime example of that. Unfortunately those same people keeping moors and other national parks the way they are are also in close contact with the people in power...

A question for you. Do you think we have severely damaged much of the country by deforestation and overgrazing?

Quite often in England not enough but its not the money. Those animals have been bred generation after generation to produce the cattle in current herds.

That's a risk they have to take, much like any other industry.

Love how the antis always shout about eradicating the species. No one wants them "wiped out" but they do want the population numbers managed the same as deer etc.

Killing at least 70% of an already reduced population... What do you call that? It's not a "cull" in the same way a cull of Deer is that's for sure...

and interference from the furry brigade.

Why are so many countries that use culling to control BTB seeing hugely positive results then?

Look at Ireland and New Zealand as examples.

Fine, then why are independent scientific studies, and in fact government advisors, recommending not to continue the cull and rather to vaccinate?

The problem with Badgers, TB and Farming are idiots from the town with their narrow minding opinions.

You might get compensation for an animal that tests positive for Tb. But that money makes no difference, that animal was part of your lifes work in many cases, your livelihood is now under thread and endless weeks of stress lays ahead. Until you've experienced it you have no right to comment on it

Hope that comment isn't aimed at me...? I'm about as far from a townie as you can get. Obviously I have no experience outside towns... Wait, no, that's not right!

What I am however is someone passionate about the environment and allowing it to thrive. I'm also a realist and know we can't change everything, but small changes, and paying a bit more* to protect things is a far better option than following political belief and power, contrary to scientific evidence.

As a scientist I get particularly fed up with the latter. Why pay for scientific advisors and studies if you don't bother to actually read them, let alone enact the recommendations!

But no, Farmers know best, look after the land and environment (a bit of a contradiction there), and know far more than specialists in the subject.

*Controversial, considering numerous studies suggest it'll be cheaper to vaccinate.

 

[wilber]

The paper is very relevant as not only does it point out previous trials in this country and the positives and negatives of those trails it also goes into depth of how m bovine is transferred and how it effects badgers differently to livestock

all very relevant information.

laughable about the reduced population of badgers in this country and basing your argument on it.

You are completely out of your mind, they have been increasing year on year the population is estimated at the low end of the scale of over half a million.

 

[SkodaMart]

Dairy cattle or meat what?

Do you keep dairy cattle or are they used for meat? Not that it really matters.

It's a foolish, immoral stand to cull badgers and I honestly don't give a fig if anyone disagrees.

To be effective in removing the spread of TB in this way (and only a tiny percentage of badgers are contagious <2%)
You would have to kill them all.

Well sorry but that isn't a price any sane person in the UK would pay for TB free cattle.

The best way of dealing with this issue is to use the culling money to vaccinate the badger population and compensate farmers for any animals that have had to be destroyed as a result of the disease.

A bovine safe approved bovine vaccine should be developed as a matter of urgency.

Lets not forget, bovine TB was at a low before the foot & mouth episode and BSE.

BSE WTF?? Feeding herbivores brains? ***********!

Which idiot came up with that idea? You only have your greedy selves to blame.

 

[elmarko]

It's not utter rubbish at all. Your stance as a vegan is clouding your judgement, as you want to believe that you're saving animals by choosing not to eat them.

I'm talking on an individual level. If a million people decided to become vegans in the UK overnight, then in time, yes it would have an impact. However I'm talking about the OP and his choice not to eat animals, his specific choice isn't going to save animals.

The same way that if I start buying more meat than I usually do, more animals aren't going to die proportionally to the amount more meat I'm buying.

But as I said, you're a vegan and you clearly can't or won't accept that your personal actions don't actually save animals, it only works on a collective basis if there are enough people participating.

Either that, or you've just derped and haven't understood the point.

You clearly still have no idea how it works.

You admit that if one million people stop it has an impact (FYI more than 1 million don't eat meat) the collective reduction in demand saves the total number of animal lives over the population who don't indulge in the consumption of meat.

Saying that just one person switching doesn't have an impact is utterly stupid beyond comprehension as society is mealy a collection of those individuals.

Do you also say that there is no point recycling because one person won't make a difference?, no point reducing your carbon footprint?, as it's exactly the same kind of responsibility avoiding tosh you are posting.

 

[spoffle]

You clearly still have no idea how it works.

It's funny that, as it's you that is clearly doing that.

You admit that if one million people stop it has an impact (FYI more than 1 million don't eat meat) the collective reduction in demand saves the total number of animal lives over the population who don't indulge in the consumption of meat.

It's not an admission, it's a fact. You are obviously not reading my posts properly because I never said there were 1 million vegetarians/vegans. I said if 1 million were to become one overnight. This means 1 million additional.

Saying that just one person switching doesn't have an impact is utterly stupid beyond comprehension as society is mealy a collection of those individuals.

Stop being so dramatic. Society is a collection of individuals, but it doesn't make any difference. An individual not eating meat doesn't "save" animals. Which was my point, on an individual basis. I don't get how you haven't been able to comprehend that.

Do you also say that there is no point recycling because one person won't make a difference?, no point reducing your carbon footprint?, as it's exactly the same kind of responsibility avoiding tosh you are posting.

Well I never said there's no point in being a vegetarian, so no I don't "also" say there's no point in recycling. I am however not delusional enough to think that my individual recycling efforts actually make a difference.

My comment was actually in response to the smug, pompous, self-congratulatory attitude of "look how many animals I think I'm saving, how great am I?" that was being exude by the OP.

You used to be able to hold an argument, what's happened? As now your arguments are seemingly from the book of logical fallacies, and your logical fallacy of the day seems to be straw man arguments.

Maybe you should put some effort in to responding to things that have been said instead of making up points that I haven't said, and then arguing against them.

As I've said before, you're a vegan and you want to feel like you're saving all these animal's lives, so I understand why your attitude is the way it is, and I don't expect you will be able to see it from another perspective.

Maybe the lack of animal fat in your diet is impacting on your cognitive abilities? I know correlation doesn't equate to causation, but it's certainly seeming like that.

 

[TaKeN]

Hope that comment isn't aimed at me...? I'm about as far from a townie as you can get. Obviously I have no experience outside towns... Wait, no, that's not right!

What I am however is someone passionate about the environment and allowing it to thrive. I'm also a realist and know we can't change everything, but small changes, and paying a bit more* to protect things is a far better option than following political belief and power, contrary to scientific evidence.

As a scientist I get particularly fed up with the latter. Why pay for scientific advisors and studies if you don't bother to actually read them, let alone enact the recommendations!

But no, Farmers know best, look after the land and environment (a bit of a contradiction there), and know far more than specialists in the subject.

*Controversial, considering numerous studies suggest it'll be cheaper to vaccinate.

Vaccinating badgers against TB is a costly exercise that Isn't 100% successful. Vaccinating a badger that already has TB, isn't going to stop it spreading TB.. as it simply will not work.

I haven't read any scientific recommendations, I simply discuss the Tuberculosis problem with our vet during the monthly visit. The problem is getting worse, not better, I'm sure you know this. As a farmer, and like many other farmers.. we just want some action, rather than the constant dead ends we reach year on year.

Do you keep dairy cattle or are they used for meat? Not that it really matters.

It's a foolish, immoral stand to cull badgers and I honestly don't give a fig if anyone disagrees.

To be effective in removing the spread of TB in this way (and only a tiny percentage of badgers are contagious <2%)
You would have to kill them all.

Well sorry but that isn't a price any sane person in the UK would pay for TB free cattle.

The best way of dealing with this issue is to use the culling money to vaccinate the badger population and compensate farmers for any animals that have had to be destroyed as a result of the disease.

A bovine safe approved bovine vaccine should be developed as a matter of urgency.

Lets not forget, bovine TB was at a low before the foot & mouth episode and BSE.

BSE WTF?? Feeding herbivores brains? ***********!

Which idiot came up with that idea? You only have your greedy selves to blame.

Dairy Cattle are Milked, once they reach the end of their working life they enter the food chain as Beef. They're a marvellous animal.

Unfortunately If Killing every infected Badger and then vaccinating every healthy one is the only option, then this avenue should be followed. Do you believe it's a better idea to wait another year, then another year, and so forth? Spending more and more money trying to decide what's right and wrong whilst letting the Tuberculosis problem increase further than it already has done?

BSE has nothing to do with TB, I'm unsure as to why you've even used that as an argument. BSE wasn't a problem until they reduced the cooking temperature of feed stuffs destined for animal consumption. I suggest you stop watching your PETA videos and visit a local Dairy Farm to see how things really do work, 99% of Dairy Farmers enjoy their lifestyle and Animals, the remaining 1% want the money and spoil it for the rest of us.

 

[Tefal]

What utter rubbish.

Do you have any idea how supply & demand works?, the vegan/vegetarian population will decrease the demand for meat by the percentage roughly equal that of their size.

On average the choice to not eat meat or eggs saves at least 200 animals per year (based on the averages across species, mostly fish - prawns & chicken, with a few of larger farm animals.).

not strictly true due to demand for the other animal products not being affected, and also because a certain number of animals are needed to be maintained to provide a safety measure and absorb fluctuations in demand.

you'd need massive numbers to avoid all animal products and products that use animal products to even start seeing a difference in numbers of animals raised and slaughtered.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Surprised nobody has mentioned these BBC documentaries which made me take notice.
It won't stop me eating meat but I was shocked - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fhb90

 

[Tefal]

Do you also say that there is no point recycling because one person won't make a difference?, no point reducing your carbon footprint?, as it's exactly the same kind of responsibility avoiding tosh you are posting.

again not true, on person recycling or reducing their carbon effect will have the result of several tons less waste a year ending in land fill or tons less co2 a year produced.

a single person not eating meat simply ends with a few more steaks in a bin behind a supermarket or in animal feed as the number of animals required will not change.

 

[spoffle]

again not true, on person recycling or reducing their carbon effect will have the result of several tons less waste a year ending in land fill or tons less co2 a year produced.

a single person not eating meat simply ends with a few more steaks in a bin behind a supermarket or in animal feed as the number of animals required will not change.

Despite the fact that I never said being a vegetarian is pointless, so he's strawmanning me, it depends on what happens with the stuff you "recycle". As depending on where you're from, it's an exercise in futility, in that everything ends up in the same place anyway. That is of course situation dependent, though.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

It's not utter rubbish at all. Your stance as a vegan is clouding your judgement, as you want to believe that you're saving animals by choosing not to eat them.

I'm talking on an individual level. If a million people decided to become vegans in the UK overnight, then in time, yes it would have an impact. However I'm talking about the OP and his choice not to eat animals, his specific choice isn't going to save animals.

The same way that if I start buying more meat than I usually do, more animals aren't going to die proportionally to the amount more meat I'm buying.

But as I said, you're a vegan and you clearly can't or won't accept that your personal actions don't actually save animals, it only works on a collective basis if there are enough people participating.

Either that, or you've just derped and haven't understood the point.

Your position is very trolly. The actions of an individual probably do get absorbed into market fluctuations, but it takes the combined actions of individuals to influence market forces. The vegans, collectively are 'saving lives', therefore, at an individual level, they are 'saving lives'. Stop trying to be a smart Alec, it's not working.

 

[spoffle]

Your position is very trolly. The actions of an individual probably do get absorbed into market fluctuations, but it takes the combined actions of individuals to influence market forces. The vegans, collectively are 'saving lives', therefore, at an individual level, they are 'saving lives'. Stop trying to be a smart Alec, it's not working.

Nope.

Oh also, you don't know what trolling means.

 

[Minstadave]

If there is less demand for meat and less animals are being killed surely less animals are bred? So less animals have a chance for life?

So are you depriving animals from being alive in the first place by not eating meat?

 

[Tefal]

If there is less demand for meat and less animals are being killed surely less animals are bred?

meat isnt the only reason animals are raised though. if meat drops but other animal product demand remains high then the meat gets thrown away, turned into fertaliser, feed cat food sold to Africa on the cheap etc.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

Nope.

Oh also, you don't know what trolling means.

Trolling is a one word response, with edit to refute trolling, presumably because your position is not defendable.

 

[spoffle]

Trolling is a one word response, with edit to refute trolling, presumably because your position is not defendable.

Yeah, no.

 

[Tefal]

Trolling is a one word response

is it?

 

[OhEsEcks]

Trolling is a art.

 

[elmarko]

Despite the fact that I never said being a vegetarian is pointless, so he's strawmanning me, it depends on what happens with the stuff you "recycle". As depending on where you're from, it's an exercise in futility, in that everything ends up in the same place anyway. That is of course situation dependent, though.

Again you seem unable to grasp the basics so ill work in simple question to aid your understanding.

Does the 7-9% UK population of people who abstain from the consumption of meat decrease demand for meat ergo reducing the need to expand or resulting in a number of existing operations slowly being unsustainable?.

The fact animal byproducts are used for other things doesn't make up for the fact the core benefit of (economically) of producing food animals is the sale of meat, it it isn't sold the average gradual reduction in demand over a prolonged period results in a net reduction in use of food animals as it's no longer commercially viable.

I'm sorry that you think the laws of supply & demand don't apply to meat production, but you are sadly mistaken.

While a singular person against a population of millions would indeed make no difference, I reality it's an additional person on an already statistically & economically significant population.

Besides, the opposing side to what you are saying is that by eating meat - you don't cause the death of animals (how nice & deluded in must be to believe that )

I'm in no way judging meat eaters or attempting to convert anybody, but factually if you eat meat - you are responsible for the deaths or animals & if you don't you are preventing expanding it.