Re: Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

pRattle & Swoon wrote:
> You have such a blind hatred of vegetarians you don't even hear what
> they are saying. 

Rick apparently read what Andrew wrote and disagrees. That doesn't mean 
he's "not listening." It means he has his own opinion.

> If one is concerned about the environment, it is
> important to talk about ways humans _in general_ can work to lessen
> their destructive impact. 

Genuine concern requires specifics, not generalizations. Of course, your 
pagan AR philosophy is rich on generalizations that never really match 
reality. You want a diet free of "animal suffering," so you annually 
consume grains and legumes which kill many more animals than you'd eat 
several years.

> What Andrew says is correct: 

No, it isn't.

> hunting is NOT an answer to environmental destruction;

It is here in Texas, as well as in other states, where many species are 
overpopulated due to lack of predation. Larger game, like deer, pose a 
real threat to humans (i.e., deer-auto collisions).

> neither is fishing. 

The species most at risk of depletion are from commercial fishing, not 
from recreational anglers.

> They have
> both become part of the problem, not the solution. 

Ipse dixit. Hunting fulfills a niche in ecosystem management. Lack of 
hunting in conjunction with significant rainfall has created an 
abundance of deer in my area. We're pretty unlikely to release wolves 
and cougars in NW Austin (too many small children in the neighborhoods, 
etc. -- stuff that's probably over your flat head), or any other major 
metropolitan area, anytime soon.

> Ranching has also
> become part of the problem, with the impact of private and government
> "pest control" programs, and the influence of grazing domestic stock
> on range and riparian environment. 

Ranching is not a problem. Controlling some aspects (like effluent 
run-off) of it is.

> No one says that large-scale,
> chemical-intensive monoculture farming is the answer EITHER.  But
> small-scale, less-chemical, more diversified, possibly partly
> enclosed, vegetable production 

What will you do about the increased potential for flooding from the 
covered acreage?

> -- plus a serious effort to encourage
> birth control and work toward negative human population growth -- is.

Malthusian.

> As for the effect of seeing animals die, I do know that can have an
> impact.  When I was a child, long before I became a vegetarian, I
> used to go visit my uncle, who had a cabin in Colorado and fished
> the stream.  One day, he took me fishing.  I caught a fish, pulled
> it up on the shore, and watched it flop and die.  That convinced me
> I never wanted to fish -- or hunt -- again.  Although I loved the
> flavor of fresh rainbow trout ( an introduced species, I now know),
> it wasn't worth it to me any longer.  My other uncle was an elk
> and pheasant hunter, and I also decided I couldn't support that.

Your emotive responses are irrelevant to the enjoyment others get from 
hunting and fishing, not to mention the revenue and benefits of game 
management from hunting.

> People's consciousness develops in different ways.

Your consciousness is clearly under-developed. In every way.