D.E.C CHARGED WITH PRO-HUNTING BIAS
Deer Advocates Demand End of Long Island Bow-Hunting Season
CONTACT: Edita Birnkrant, NY Director, Friends of Animals. 917.940.2725; EMAIL
MEET AT: 50 Circle Drive, off Nicolls Rd, near the stadium on the SUNY/Stony Brook campus; DIRECTIONS.
New York City—Animal advocates will hold a press conference Friday, October 29, at 11 am outside the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) regional headquarters in Stony Brook, Long Island to call an end to Long Island’s hunting season on deer.
Most people perceive the DEC as a neutral, scientific body, the event’s organizers say. “It’s time that the public learned the facts,” says Edita Birnkrant, New York Director of Friends of Animals.
“Hunting and habitat manipulation for hunting on public lands, in parks, sanctuaries and refuges, is a violation of public trust,” said Birnkrant.
Hunting and managing deer and other animals is increasingly being tagged by scientist for putting “evolution in reverse.” It makes smaller and weaker animals more likely to survive. Moreover, it causes deer populations to rebound increase in a cyclical reaction to us. Thus the deer-management paradox: The more you hunt, the more deer you get.
“The DEC urges hunters to recruit new hunters, especially children, and its officials glorify hunting,” says Bill Crain, president of the East Hampton Group for Wildlife.
In the DEC booklet “Hunting and Trapping: 2010-2011 Official Guide to Laws and Regulation”, Patricia Riexiner, Director of the DEC’s Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources, urges hunters to become mentors to potential young hunters and writes that bagging her own first turkey was “the intoxicating, set-the-hook kind of success that can turn a beginner into a smitten hunter.” The Guide also is filled with ads for rifles and hunting equipment.
Organizations and individuals at the press conference will include Friends of Animals, the East Hampton Group for Wildlife, Wildlife Watch, Virginia Frati, pioneering wildlife rescuer, and Ron Delsener, a legendary manager in the pop music scene. People for the End of Animal Cruelty and Exploitation are among the supporters of the event.
The event’s organizers observe that the DEC receives over half its funding from hunting licenses and fees and excise taxes on gun, ammo, and archery sales.
“The DEC wants to expand hunting to keep its jobs. The State must change the funding arrangement if the DEC is to be a truly independent body that looks out for all life in our environment,” states Ellen Crain, Secretary-Treasurer of the East Hampton Group for Wildlife.
Advocates slammed the DEC’s decision to begin the Long Island deer bow-hunting season on the first of October—a month earlier than last year. Bow hunting often results in leaving deer to die slow and painful deaths,” says Edita Birnkrant, NY Director of Friends of Animals.
In the case of pheasants, the DEC’s wish to expand hunting has interfered with its mission of wildlife conservation. The DEC recognizes that pheasant populations are very low, but instead of focusing on their renewal in the wild, the DEC concentrates on stocking the birds for hunters to shoot. In the case of turkey hunting, the DEC’s pro-hunting attitude interferes with human health concerns. The DEC has added wild turkey hunting on Long Island despite the fact that turkeys are a major predator of ticks that carry Lyme disease.
Friends of Animals insists that our wildlife refuges be restored as inviolate sanctuaries which allow every species there to undergo the test of nature to guarantee its survival over time. The group opposes hunting and pharmaceutical manipulation of fertility in free-living animals.
Educational pamphlets about hunting, published by Friends of Animals, will be provided to the press and public.
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
31 Comments
On October 26, 2010, Donna wrote:
Let nature take its course. We dont have to kill animals.
On October 26, 2010, Ryan wrote:
We are part of nature! What we do IS “nature taking its course.”
On October 26, 2010, Edita Birnkrant wrote:
Ryan,
So by your definition, clear-cutting forests, polluting the water, air & soil, and massacring free-living animals are all part of nature “taking its course” simply because human beings are part of nature? Hunting is an act against nature. Ryan, I think you’d get a lot out of reading FoA’s newly published Hunting pamphlet. I’d be happy to send you a copy if you’d like to privately email me your mailing address at Edita [AT] friendsofanimals.org
The first page of the educational hunting pamphlet has a section entitled “What is Nature?”
This is what follows:
If hunting is an act against nature, it follows that we must define nature. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “So Human An Animal,” Rene Dubos, the scientific investigator, provides deep insights. Dubos points out that nature is never static. Nature is a dynamic relating humanity to the total environment—a creative interplay between humans and animals, plants and other aspects of nature. This creative view is held by most scientists and naturalists. Hunting certainly doesn’t quality as creative.
Edita Birnkrant
NY Director
Friends of Animals
On October 26, 2010, Kody wrote:
So much misinformation, it’s hilarious. Your organization’s ignorance shines through in that article above. I hope to make it up there Friday to see all 3 of you holding your signs.
The October bow season has been in place for years (about 8 or so), not just instituted.
Pheasant are a non-native species INTRODUCED BY MAN! None of their population here in NY is “natural,” even the wild reproducing populations.
Conservation is the management of resources for sustainability and man’s use of the resources. What you preach is Preservation. Sportsman pay to fund the DEC through hunting, fishing and trapping licensing fees, and have a reasonable expectation for the DEC to manage and provide them with hunting opportunities.
Your assinign “charge” of the DEC having a hunting bias, is as rediculous as you’re gonna look on Friday. Of course they have a hunting bias. Thats what the sportsmen pay them for. The DEC purchases lands with sportsmans to protect them as open space and provide sportsman with the hunting/fishing opportunities they paid for with their licenses. No sportsman, no money. And then, no land purhcases, and no more open space for ANYTHING.
You enviro-nuts aren’t coughing up the shekles to protect the open space (aka, nature, environment, and the animals that live there) from development. It’s just easier for you to stand there and whine about that which you don’t have any understanding of.
I’m a proud NY angler, hunter, trapper, sportsman, CONSERVATIONIST, and volunteer mentor to many children that have become successful young sportsmen and sportswomen themselves. You people should be ashamed of yourselves trying to take that away from them.
On October 26, 2010, Ryan wrote:
Yes, I believe that all the things you just described are part of nature. There are other sources of destruction such as volcanoes, hurricanes, ect. These are considered “natural disasters” because humans have played no role, but I argue that humans are Natural Beings as well and that our impacts to the environment, destructive or not are natural.
I will say however, that this does not mean that we should go on with these destructive activities haphazardly. A good aphorism is, “Do everything in moderation.” Being careful about how much we impact and destroy is very important. We are never going to be able to do away with our negative impacts to the environment altogether. Man was made to use it to its advantage. We will always be manipulators of this environment simply because we can. Being careful of how we do it, so as to not destroy the resources (Earth) that we so desperately depend on, is what’s important. Carefully regulated development projects, energy production, and land-use are what need to be done. A carefully monitored and regulated hunting season is just as right as a regulated dairy farm, or hydro-electric plant. It is a way to responsibly utilize the Earth’s many resources for our own enjoyment and survival.
It’s no secret that as humans we live a life that is full of unnecessary luxuries, but I believe it is part of the bargain. With the bestowment of the most intelligent brains come these great amenities, but with them comes responsibility. That is what we need to focus on.
I do not believe that a closely regulated hunting season goes against this belief, in fact, I believe it is the exact opposite. Hunting can be used as a method to successfully and efficiently manage populations of species. Yes, all forms of hunting do not necessarily accomplish this, but some do. Whitetail deer hunting is a great example of this. In addition, hunting has created more revenue for the protection and preservation of wildlife than most can even comprehend. Look at the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson Acts. These funds don’t just go to the management of game species. They are distributed to state agencies for use in every area imaginable, especially endangered species. Believe it or not, most hunters are outdoor enthusiasts just like yourself, and I will argue that many have a much more intimate and deeper appreciation and understanding of the outdoors, and the creatures that go along with it, than many of your counterparts.
Humans are omnivores. (Though some may disagree, that is an entirely different discussion which I will take no further) Whether you eat beef, venison, fish, chicken, pheasant, or pork, you are eating an animal that was grown off of the land and harvested by a human. Some of these animals are grown domestically and some are not. One might argue that harvesting a wild animal is much less destructive to the environment simply because its entire raising occurred naturally and did not require fenced in pastures, overgrazed grasslands, manipulated water systems, ect.
I respect your views, I just do not agree with them. Humans have been harvesting animals since the beginning of time, and I do not believe that we need to stop anytime soon as long as we do it in an environmentally responsible manner. A regulated hunting season is just that.
On October 26, 2010, Jon wrote:
“Each year more than 200 people die in similar accidents. Deer collide with vehicles 1.5 million times every year - causing more than $1 billion in damage.” (CBS News) and this is in the U.S.
And it is estimated 6 million are killed in the U.S by hunters (I got this one from yahoo answers and I think it is a little high). Either way it looks like hunters need to harvest 1.5 million more deer each year. If people are allowed to kill their babies before they are born I just don’t see the problem with animals, especially if other animals are going to be slaughtered in their place.
On October 26, 2010, Dan wrote:
Just as you have the right to stand against hunting, hunters and DEC officials have the right to stand for it. Do you honestly expect them to go out and employ people who have a bias against hunting, Or no feeling one way or another?
It’s not like its the wild west out there, there are regulation, that are very strongly enforced by these ‘pro hunting bias DEC officials’. Any hunter would tell you the same, just because they don’t find hunting discusting, doesn’t mean they are not advocates for the rights of animals. And Yes, hunting is part of nature, it always has been, wildlife managment is a fact of life…
On October 27, 2010, Edita Birnkrant wrote:
The only species that humans should be concerned about managing is our own.
Blog posters Kody & Ryan seem to hold the view that the human species has the right to dominate, exploit and use other species and the natural environment as a means to our end. This destructive, violent paradigm is one that needs to be transcended. There will be nothing left to “conserve” if we do not preserve what is left of the natural world.
Just as we now know that the sun, moon, stars and other planets do not revolve around the Earth, it’s time to accept that the web of life on Earth does not revolve or exist to fulfill the demands of human beings. It takes maturity and letting go of the human arrogance that have shaped the social paradigm for so long, but what other choice do we really have if we are to assure a sustainable existence on Earth?
And, let’s call things as they are, shall we?
“Harvesting” = Killing,
“Conservation” does not mean exploitation, and hunters are not “sportsmen” or “sportswomen.” They are people who propagate an assault on nature.
And Dan: Just as I would not call a serial killer an “advocate for the rights of humans,” I would not think it appropriate for a hunter, who stalks through the woods with the sole purpose of killing the non-human dwellers living there, an “advocate for the rights of animals.” The most important “right” that free-living animals deserve is the right to be let alone.
The DEC’s corruption and betrayal of public trust is appalling, and yes, we do have the right to speak out against it, and we’re excercising that right on Friday. Kody, I hope to see you there.
On October 27, 2010, Mike wrote:
Sure we have been harvesting animals “Since the beginning of time”. We have also have had wars and hatred toward each other “Since the beginning of time”. As “Supreme Beings” we should know better than to exploit other creatures. We should be concerned mainly with limiting the numbers of humans on this fragile planet, as we are causing great damage to it. Human domination of everything is not sustainable. There will be ramifications for our arrogance.
On October 27, 2010, David Forjan wrote:
Well said, Edita.
I agree 100%.
David
On October 28, 2010, Ryan wrote:
Edita,
Did you intentionally ignore what I said? I stressed that as intelligent beings, we must be responsible so that we do not “destroy” the environment “as a means to our own end.”
There is no way that you can justify what you are saying. If the only species that we are to manage is our own, than you must be saying that we need to put restrictions on the human population as a whole, because believe it or not, the human population is still growing which means that we as a “species” are going to continue to require more resources and more land. Are you saying that we need to regulate the number of children a family can have and tell people how they must live so as to “not bother” the natural world in which we live in? If this is your view, then I believe that you love the creatures of this world more than humans, and if that is true, than I do not believe that you are fit to be called one.
Humans are unique in every way compared to any other creature on this planet. We DO deserve to dominate the Earth simply because we can. Remember survival of the fittest? We are the fittest creatures on this planet which means that we must do whatever it takes to survive. We should feel lucky that there are people out there like you and mean that have a stress free enough life to care about the natural environment. If you were living in a third world country, and exploiting our natural resources to keep your family from starving, I don’t think you would give two thoughts about how you were affecting the environment as long as there was still going to be something left for you to exploit again when needed.
If you and people like you don’t like the idea of killing an animal that is okay with me. You don’t have to. I and millions upon millions of other will. You can live out your own beliefs in your own life and I will live out mine. Just don’t try to force me to do something I don’t believe in.
If you want the DEC to become unbiased towards hunting and fishing, then staring forking out the money. As Kody said, sportsmen and sportswomen are the primary financial contributors to the preservation and conservation of natural areas. Maybe your organization could purchase some land for your own purposes, and let outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen contribute money to the purchase of land for theirs. Maybe you can create your one state agency called the NYS Dept. of Environmental Preservation. And then maybe you can charge everyone who wants to go bird watching or hiking a license fee so that you can fund those interests.
I am glad I live in a country where people can openly express what they believe in, but I do not think that charging the DEC corrupt is an accurate statement. They are simply carrying out duties in a manner that their financial contributors find appealing. They have in no way betrayed public trust. They are trying to do what the “public,” financial contributors, depend upon them to do.
On October 28, 2010, KK wrote:
Do the animals even want friends?
On October 28, 2010, Ginger wrote:
I am a “medicare grandma” so i’ve been around the block a few times, on foot and horseback. What I have learned over the years is that it is neither wise nor productive to lump everyone not in lock step with any given organization an “enemy.” I know many fishermen and hunters that care deeply about our environment both plant and animal. They are not the enemy. Shake hands with them and you will see that your differences are not insurmountable. Yes, there are idiots on both side who would rather spit in your eye than shake your hand, but they are ineffective.
And I do put my money where my mouth is, I have for many many years been a strong financial supporter of individual parks as well as the NPCA.
Oh and by the way - did you ever ask yourself why is is not safe to eat fish caught in many PA waterways? The poisoners of the water - they are the enemy.
On October 28, 2010, Ryan wrote:
I couldn’t agree with you more Ginger. Thanks so much for your input. You are 100% right. We should be coming together to make this place healthier and cleaner for all. That is our responsibilty. We may have differing opinions on how some things should be done, but we shouldn’t be trying to do away with the other. There are very different opinions and beliefs on this subject out there. We may never be able to meet in the middle as a compromise because they are so different, but we can definitly work together where we have things in common. Thanks again for your input. God Bless
On October 29, 2010, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
I agree with Edita completely. The DEC has indeed betrayed the public trust.
Hunting is an act against nature, not a part of it. That understood, Ryan and Kody, you’re promoting a naturalistic fallacy, an invalid assumption that what’s natural is therefore good.
Further, that we can dominate others doesn’t mean we should. Our exploitation of other species has caused the misery and death of billions of living beings — and with that it has destroyed natural resources, and become a major factor in global warming. The conditions we’ve created by dominating other animals will in turn dominate us.
It makes no sense to blame deer for auto accidents when there are effective ways to prevent them. That far more accidents and fatalities are caused by drunk driving, shows blaming deer is exaggerated and misplaced.
As for hunters loving animals, to quote Tom Regan, “Hunters love animals like rapists love their victims”.
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
Ellie,
Your statement “hunting is an act against nature” is laughable. Humans are animals, and part of nature, and have been hunting, the same as every other predator/carnivore/omnivore in nature has done since we evolved. That’s an evolutionary fact that no amount of tofu you want to consume will ever change.
Hunting is not an act against nature. It’s part of it. Many animals in nature hunt to survive. And as has been said, we’re animals that are part of nature. Whether you want to believe it or not. Hunting has far less of an impact on nature, than the pollution man causes. Pollution like that which comes out of the exhaust pipe of the cars you drove up to the Regional office in.
I saw some pictures posted of your demonstration at the Regional office today. I have to say, I respect your organizations right to protest what you don’t like. And you guys appeared to be mutually respectful of the other people around you. I can always respectfully disagree with another person/group. I don’t respect your use of lies and propoganda to try and garner support, but for the 10 or so of you that showed up, it looks like not too many people are drinking your “kool-aide” anyway.
P.S. I just got back from a week long trip of hunting in the soy bean fields of North Dakota. Soy beans, the things your to-fu is made from. Soy beasn, which the farmers grow using pesticides and hunting to kill the animals that would otherwise eat/damage their crops. So by eating tofu, you’re supporting farming, which supports the killing of animals.
Thanks!
On October 29, 2010, Bob Orabona, Friends of Animals wrote:
Perhaps this subtlety is easily missed by a hunter, but humans hunting with modern day weapons and gear is an act against nature in the same way that using an atomic bomb against humanity is. The big word “Evolution” is not about the evolution of a single species, but the co-evolution of all species. In nature, animals and plants cannot evolve at the same rate as human technological growth. So, they cannot develop natural defenses against technological change. Instead, they are largely defenseless. And there you have it — the not-so-brave hunter killing largely defenseless animals.
As most of the soybeans grown in the US are grown to feed cattle, not eating their flesh or drinking their milk means fewer animals killed to protect the crop and of course fewer cattle killed as well. Humans do have a need to feed themselves. It’s just that hunting is not needed to accomplish it.
On October 29, 2010, Ryan wrote:
Bob Orabona,
I don’t think anyone is saying that hunting is necessary. What we are saying is that it is a right that we should have as human beings. If you do not like hunting or do not want to hunt, than that is fine. But I, on the other hand, do. I don’t think most hunters are trying to shove hunting down people’s throats, so why do people like you try to shove your beliefs down ours?
And Ellie Maldonado:
Quoting an ignorant fool does not impress me. I am sure you are a very smart well educated person. Why not have your own opinions about things? I am actually quite disgusted by that comment. Bringing rape into this discussion is utterly despicable.
I am an avid hunter as my father and father’s father was before me. They taught me to respect the creatures of the forest. Yes, I have harvested (or killed as you people like to call it) many animals, but many of those same species, I have also sat and watched in their natural state (without a weapon in my hand) out of awe for God’s beautiful creation. I have nursed orphaned opossums, raccoons, and even an owl back to health simply because I care for them and respect them.
Killing an animal is not what makes hunting fun; in fact, I have even shed a tear after making a kill. What makes hunting rewarding is feeling that you are part of nature and not just a bystander. Though many of us have become detached from our natural environment due to urban living (such as New York City), I grew up on a dead end of a dirt road, miles upon miles from any large city. Maybe if people like you would take some time and have a hunter take you out for an evening or morning hunt, you then could experience what we do and feel what we feel. If you still do not like it, then I am perfectly fine with that. However, I still don’t believe forcing your opinions and will on others is right.
You may argue that is exactly what we are doing to the animals we hunt; forcing our wills upon them. I would have to agree with that, but that’s why they are animals and we are humans. In my eyes (and I am sure you will disagree) animals and humans are very different. To put it into perspective, I believe that plants and animals are far more similar than humans are to animals. Humans have a brain (and a soul, but we aren’t talking spiritual) far more superior than animals. We have self awareness, something that animals do not have. Animals work more like robots. They do what simply comes natural to them and cannot speak in words or compile information for use in later years. Their brains are built to survive and produce offspring and that is about it. Plants, a different form of life works the same way an animal does. It is programmed to survive and produce offspring for the future. I believe that harvesting (or killing) an animal is the same as harvesting a plant when you get right down to it.
With that said, I will like to say that I believe we all share the same ultimate passion. We all love, respect, and cherish the natural world and the plants and animals within it. We should come together in our similarities to try and make the world a cleaner place, free of pollution and waste.
On October 29, 2010, V.L wrote:
Bob, Id like to see your facts. My math figures livestock consumes only about 30% of the soybean harvest. To make it easy for you.
2000 lbs in 1 ton.
2.8 billion bushels= 168 billion lbs… 60lbs in a bushel
168 billion lbs= 84 mill tons.
therefore, 30mill tons is a tad more than 30% So 70% remains for human use!
From the EPA’s website:
Soybeans: Approximately 2.8 billion bushels of soybeans were harvested from almost 73 million acres of cropland in the U.S. in 2000. This acreage is roughly equivalent to that of corn grown for grain. Over 350,000 farms in the United States produce soybeans, accounting for over 50% of the world’s soybean production and $6.66 billion in soybean and product exports in 2000. Soybeans represented 56 percent of world oilseed production in 2000.
Soybeans are used to create a variety of products, the most basic of which are soybean oil, meal, and hulls. According to the United Soybean Board, soybean oil, used in both food manufacturing and frying and sautéing, represents approximately 79 percent of all edible oil consumed in the United States. Soybean oil also makes its way into products ranging from anti-corrosion agents to Soy Diesel fuel to waterproof cement. Over 30 million tons of soybean meal are consumed as livestock feed in a year. Even the hulls are used as a component of cattle feed rations.
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
“Humans with modern day weapons and gear is an act against nature.”
Bob, ancient caveman, with stone spear points and bows and arrows were “modern day weapons” at one time. Man has evolved to use tools to our advantage. We’ve always had that over other animals. And animals have adapted sharper senses to avoid or detect humans because of it. Man hunts today with arrows the similarly to when it was first developed in prehistoric times.
“Humans do have a need to feed themselves. It’s just that hunting is not needed to accomplish it.”
Have you ever visited a cattle ranch or slaughter house? I have. I feel much more morally justified in harvesting an animal myself that has had a chance to live, breed, and avoid me, wild in nature, quickly and relatively painlessly, rather than pay a farmer to raise an animal on a mass production farm, transport it to a slaughter house to stand in line waiting to be slaughtered and wrapped in a neat package so that modern civilization can remove itself from the realities of life.
Steaks don’t grow on trees.
And while the majority of soybeans may be grown to feed the cattle, those that are grown to make your tofu, are still grown using pesticides to kill animals, and potentially contaminate the environment. Harvesting and eating wild game requires no pesticide use and causes no contamination to the environment. Huh, look at that. My carbon footprint is less than that of a vegitarian…
some additional thoughts about saying man’s evolved technological advantages over our game are not fair, why not criticize the whales that hunt the disadvantaged herring with sonar, or the sea otter that uses rocks to smash abolone to death before eating them.
And for those that think the harvesting of an animal instantly, or within minutes, by arrow or bullet is a cruel. Have any of you ever watched a pack of killer whales spend hours drowning a baby grey whale while it’s mother struggles to push it up to breath, just to eat the calf’s tounge and let the rest fall to the ocean floor?
Or Komoto dragon that bites a water buffalo on the leg and allows it to suffer and die weeks later from infection, as the lizards swarm around it, waiting for it succumb?
What about a pride of lions that take down and kill a wildebeast and as one lion chokes it to death, others begin to disembowl it, and eat it alive?
And finally, what about our closest kin, the monkeys that war with each other, and troops attack each other, and bash each other with rocks, or tear off genitals and let the victim bleed to death?
You think the relatively instant harvesting an animal for food with a modern weapon is “an act against nature” but have no problems with these other far more brutal acts OF NATURE?
On October 29, 2010, Bob Orabona, Friends of Animals wrote:
Compare the evolution of a spear from its inception to its present day state. While the spear has been in use for thousands of years, today at its height of sophistication, it remains little more that a pointy stick. Compare that to the evolution to a rifle which occurred over a much shorter time and developed into a much more deadly weapon than the original. Modern day hunters don’t use spears or even the ancient rifle because it doesn’t give them the advantage over an animal that modern technology does.
Of course, organic soy products are readily available and are not sprayed with pesticides. Go organic. And don’t eat dead animals. As I have said, it’s not necessary to do so — just as hunting is not necessary.
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
Do you know what “organic” means? It means it contains a carbon molecule. Lots of pesticides contain carbon molecules. Cyanide is “organic.” Lots of organic farms use pesticides at one point or another during their season’s production.
And those that don’t still employ nuisance shooting or hunting to kill the deer, and other critters that would otherwise damage their crops. So buying organic produce is still causing the deaths of deer, and other critters.
On October 29, 2010, Bob Orabona, Friends of Animals wrote:
Oh please, that’s only one meaning of the word organic. It’s clear I used it as the FDA defines it in the production of food — food grown without pesticides.
Organic farming is in its infancy and is already adopting non-lethal methods of “pest-control”.
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
Please show a regulatory definition that states “organic” means food grown without pesticides.
That’s what you want to think it means.
FoA comments:
How about this?
USDA Organic: In 2000, after a 10-year development process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rolled out its rules covering use of the word “organic” on foods. The USDA accredits independent certifiers, who then check the claims of producers. The system has three levels:
“100% Organic”: Can only contain organic ingredients, meaning no antibiotics, hormones, genetic engineering, radiation or synthetic pesticides or fertilizers can be used. Can display the USDA organic logo and/or the specific certifying agent’s logo.
“Organic”: Contains 95% organic ingredients, with the balance coming from ingredients on the approved National List. These products can also display the USDA organic logo and/or the certifier’s logo
“Made with Organic Ingredients”: Must be made with at least 70% organic ingredients, three of which must be listed on the package, and the balance must be on the National List. These products may display the certifier’s logo but not the USDA organic logo.
Bob
On October 29, 2010, Bob Orabona, Friends of Animals wrote:
From the USDA website:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/background.htm
“In the United States, nearly all soybeans are crushed to extract the oil from the resulting meal. A comparatively small amount of whole soybeans are used for seed, roasted for snacks or on-farm dairy feed, and consumed as traditional soyfoods such as tofu.”
“Livestock feeds account for 98 percent of soybean meal consumption, with the remainder used in human foods such as bakery ingredients and meat substitutes.”
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
“No synthetic pesticides pesticides” can be use. Natural “organic” pesticides are not prohibited. Organic pesticide contain carbon. There are lots of “organic” pesticides that are very deadly.
FoA comments:
Plants contain organic pesticides as natural defenses against pests. So now you’re arguing no one should eat plants or the animals that eat them. Wow, that’s one step further than “going organic” and I hope you take it — soon.
Bob
On October 29, 2010, Kody wrote:
Nope. Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said not to eat anything. I don’t care if anyone wants to drink pesticides. You said “organic” produce means grown without pesticides. I just showed you, and you apparently just agreed, that that is not true.
FoA comments:
Your words expressed an exaggerated concern over the use of soybeans in the fields you visited. You didn’t say they were organic soybean fields, and likely they weren’t. I’ll stand by my words — “go organic.”
On October 29, 2010, V.L wrote:
“Compare that to the evolution to a rifle which occurred over a much shorter time and developed into a much more deadly weapon than the original.”
Im afraid you are mistaken,Bob. I didnt know it was possible to make a gun more deadly. Dead is dead. I think what you meant to say was a MORE ACCURATE AND EFFICIENT arm. What that does for us is make it MORE humane then it ever was.
On October 30, 2010, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
Kody,
I agree humans are animals, but our anatomy more closely resembles herbivores than either omnivores or carnivores. If our evolution was based on eating other animals, we’d have more in common with nonhuman predators. That humans can digest the flesh doesn’t mean we need to eat it.
The theory of “Man the Hunter” has been debunked by fossil evidence that shows early humans were actually prey to other animals for millions of years. If you’re interested, you might read “Man the Hunted” by Donna Hart and Robert Sussman.
In the natural world, hunting is based on abject survival. Most humans hunt by choice, which isn’t comparable. The farmers in North Dakota also had a choice. They could have chosen non-lethal ways to keep free-living animals out of their soy fields, but instead they chose to kill them. As Bob Orabona explained, most soy is grown to feed cattle, and not eating animal products will reduce the number of farm animals who will be killed.
I’m glad a growing number of crop farmers are choosing vegan organic methods.
On October 30, 2010, Ellie Maldonado wrote:
Ryan,
Hunters say they love nonhuman animals. If that’s true, why do they perpetrate the ultimate assault on them?
As you’ve said, you think they are like robots or plants that lack self awareness. But behavioral studies show nonhuman animals are personal beings, who are aware of themselves and their environment, and who experience emotions like we do.
Based on how we define “intelligence”, one could say they have less than we do, but they can understand a lot more than we have assumed.
I respect the care you’ve given to an orphaned possum, raccoon and owl, and wonder why you don’t extend these feelings to deer and other animals?
On November 27, 2010, Katherine McGill wrote:
Wow, 2010, all the science available at our fingertips… and we still believe hunting is “conservation”? Hunting is RECREATION, and no matter what rights a hunter has or not, no matter how much he “contributes”, he has NO more right to exploit common resources that are owned equally by all.
One brief look at some of the genuine wildlife refuges we have left proves we do not need hunting. Animals do NOT overpopulate where left alone. Start killing and you jump-start reproduction. CRE science. Please get with the 21st century and stop blabbering 16th century. Too many hunters, not enough resources. Make hunting more expensive, just like every other recreational activity. It is exactly what would happen if we had equal representation on our wildlife councils instead of special interest party boys.