Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Prop 2 Wins!! Huge Victory for the Animals in California Factory Farms!
In a historic election for animals in the US, Proposition 2 is currently ahead 62%-37% with 32% of precincts reporting. European countries have passed similar legislation regarding battery cages for chickens and so forth, but no state in the entire US has passed anything nearly as comprehensive as this. And California is one of, if not the, largest agricultural states in the US. The effects of this proposition will be felt far and wide, to the benefit of animals everywhere, if not immediately, in time. Read below on the common sense, compassionate changes it will make for food animals.
Thank you, California voters!! Thank you for those who cannot speak for themselves!
Thank you, California voters!! Thank you for those who cannot speak for themselves!
Help Animals in Veal Crates, Battery Cages, Gestation Crates
This November 4, Californians should vote YES! on Prop 2 - a
modest measure that stops cruel and inhumane treatment of
animals, ending the practice of cramming farm animals into cages
so small the animals can't even turn around, lie down or extend
their limbs.
Voting YES! on Prop 2...
Prevents cruelty to animals.
It's simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and
egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies.
Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in
severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens
get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn't
force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole
lives, and we shouldn't force farm animals to endure such
misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve
humane treatment.
Improves our health and food safety.
We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows
exposed by a Southern California slaughter plant investigation
this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus
and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farms put our health
at risk-cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages,
fostering the spread of diseases that may affect people. YES! on
Prop 2 is better for animals and for us.
Supports family farmers.
California family farmers support YES! on Prop 2 because they
know that better farming practices enhance food quality and
safety. Increasingly, they're supplying major retailers like
Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive
family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of
animal welfare and our health.
Protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
The American Public Health Association has called for a
moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating
effects these operations can have on surrounding communities,
spreading untreated waste on the ground and contaminating our
waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. Prop 2 helps stop
some of the worst abuses and protects our precious natural
resources. That's why California Clean Water Action and Sierra
Club-California support YES! on Prop 2.
Is a reasonable and common-sense reform.
Prop 2 provides ample time-until 2015-for factory farms using
these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane
practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed
similar laws. Prop 2 is supported by In Defense of Animals, The
Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, hundreds of
California veterinarians, including the California Veterinary
Medical Association; California family farmers; the Center for
Food Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, the United Farm Workers, and the
Cesar Chavez Foundation; Republican and Democratic elected
officials; California religious leaders; and many others.
http://idausa.org
---------------------------------
Check out what it is currently is like in California without Prop 2:
This November 4, Californians should vote YES! on Prop 2 - a
modest measure that stops cruel and inhumane treatment of
animals, ending the practice of cramming farm animals into cages
so small the animals can't even turn around, lie down or extend
their limbs.
Voting YES! on Prop 2...
Prevents cruelty to animals.
It's simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and
egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies.
Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in
severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens
get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn't
force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole
lives, and we shouldn't force farm animals to endure such
misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve
humane treatment.
Improves our health and food safety.
We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows
exposed by a Southern California slaughter plant investigation
this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus
and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farms put our health
at risk-cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages,
fostering the spread of diseases that may affect people. YES! on
Prop 2 is better for animals and for us.
Supports family farmers.
California family farmers support YES! on Prop 2 because they
know that better farming practices enhance food quality and
safety. Increasingly, they're supplying major retailers like
Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive
family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of
animal welfare and our health.
Protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
The American Public Health Association has called for a
moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating
effects these operations can have on surrounding communities,
spreading untreated waste on the ground and contaminating our
waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. Prop 2 helps stop
some of the worst abuses and protects our precious natural
resources. That's why California Clean Water Action and Sierra
Club-California support YES! on Prop 2.
Is a reasonable and common-sense reform.
Prop 2 provides ample time-until 2015-for factory farms using
these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane
practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed
similar laws. Prop 2 is supported by In Defense of Animals, The
Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, hundreds of
California veterinarians, including the California Veterinary
Medical Association; California family farmers; the Center for
Food Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest, the United Farm Workers, and the
Cesar Chavez Foundation; Republican and Democratic elected
officials; California religious leaders; and many others.
http://idausa.org
---------------------------------
Check out what it is currently is like in California without Prop 2:
For more information:
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/02/0...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Why I would never support Prop 2
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0YGzb52W64
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aD_UKatDrA
Sean Day an activist attorney explains an abolition point of view and discredits prop2 in his speech, paths to liberation at AR2008.
He notes that "Room to Roam" will require cages to be 2-3 times larger but will allow 2-3 times more animals in the same cage as long as one animal in the larger cage can lift it's wing, leg or turn around at a time.
Just like these "free range animals" bellow the difference now will be that people will feel better about eating meat because it's considered "humane".
To clarify, there is no such thing as "humane" meat.
This is what tens of thousands of hours and dollars in the animal "welfare" movement is supporting over vegan outreach?
It's not a surprise coming from HSUS who takes money from the meat industry and helps financially support the capture of animal liberationists. They also supported AB 2296 (the CA version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.) What I find surprising is not HSUS but the activists who are supporting prop2 and HSUS over this.
Never blindly follow any political group. Always educate yourself and ask questions. The reason most of us are all here is because of our affinity to not be followers of societies dictation.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0YGzb52W64
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aD_UKatDrA
Sean Day an activist attorney explains an abolition point of view and discredits prop2 in his speech, paths to liberation at AR2008.
He notes that "Room to Roam" will require cages to be 2-3 times larger but will allow 2-3 times more animals in the same cage as long as one animal in the larger cage can lift it's wing, leg or turn around at a time.
Just like these "free range animals" bellow the difference now will be that people will feel better about eating meat because it's considered "humane".
To clarify, there is no such thing as "humane" meat.
This is what tens of thousands of hours and dollars in the animal "welfare" movement is supporting over vegan outreach?
It's not a surprise coming from HSUS who takes money from the meat industry and helps financially support the capture of animal liberationists. They also supported AB 2296 (the CA version of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.) What I find surprising is not HSUS but the activists who are supporting prop2 and HSUS over this.
Never blindly follow any political group. Always educate yourself and ask questions. The reason most of us are all here is because of our affinity to not be followers of societies dictation.
Well, at least there is some measurable progress with the reformism. It's pretty clear, with the wide margin of victory, that other states will pick up similar laws. People saw through the scary warnings that we'll catch bird flu from eggs imported from Nevada. I saw people filling out absentee ballots who are hostile to vegetarians, but read "should a pig be able to lie down and turn around", and thought 'of course'. They aren't even aware of how laying hens are treated. So just reading that is an accomplishment.
you can take a purist stance -- yes, this is not total animal liberation -- but I believe it will make a difference for the better for millions of animals in california. and that's nothing to sneeze at
Amen, not liberation. Your point of view is one I would never dream of following. What do ~you~ suggest to help animals in agriculture? Oh, I might add, what PRACTICAL suggestion do you have? Abolition of all meat-eating in one fell swoop? Sounds great. Just HOW would that be accomplished? Any PRACTICAL suggestions, or is your position just ideological hot air? And, since you're the critic of others, why not show us what you got: get out and make the RADICAL changes you criticize others for not making. So easy to be an armchair "philosopher" critic.
Such a colossal waste of time. Hens are still going to be debeaked and starved, tens of millions of their brothers are going to be killed shortly after birth in industrial grinders or by suffocation because they don't produce eggs, they're STILL going to live horrific lives of suffering, severely overcrowded, until they're trucked off to the same slaughterhouses.
Caring citizens should be promoting VEGANISM, and blocking/eliminating the functioning of slaughterhouses--today's Auschwitz--in whatever creative ways they see fit.
Caring citizens should be promoting VEGANISM, and blocking/eliminating the functioning of slaughterhouses--today's Auschwitz--in whatever creative ways they see fit.
Fundamentalism feels good.
Therefore I promote it.
Fundamentalists unite!
Purism is its own end, and the true beneficiary of purism is the purist him/herself.
Fundamentalists are divorced from Real Life, and thus, from Real Life solutions.
Rant on, oh Fundamentalist Ones, as ranting is your thing.
The rest of us will do Real Work for Real Animals who reside in the Real World.
Therefore I promote it.
Fundamentalists unite!
Purism is its own end, and the true beneficiary of purism is the purist him/herself.
Fundamentalists are divorced from Real Life, and thus, from Real Life solutions.
Rant on, oh Fundamentalist Ones, as ranting is your thing.
The rest of us will do Real Work for Real Animals who reside in the Real World.
The comments claiming that Prop 2 was a "waste of time" is countered by significant evidence that many of the larger corporate factory farms spent a good amount of money on advertisement to defeat Prop 2. Why would the factory farm corporations waste their money to defeat Prop 2 if this measure was a "waste of time" as some comments state..
This proposition now will cost some of the larger factory farm operations as they'll need to widen and expand their cage spaces (if they want to sell in CA!), that were previously set for the bare minimum of moving around space needed for the animals, all in the interest of efficiency. In this case the bare minimum as followed by the factory farming operations wasn't even giving most animals room to turn around in a circle..
This proposition could also help out the smaller free range operations now more on a level playing field as the larger corporate factory farms will need to play fair and give the animals more room or reduce their numbers. Either way the animals are given a little bit more leeway than they had before, and every little bit helps..
Truly if it were up to me there would be no more factory farms at all, and people could either hunt wild game for meat themselves or try their hand at a little backyard chicken coop and fenced in yardspace if they so desire. Bringing back the small farmer and raising animals that are part of the family farm is a world away from the mass production of cattle at the corporate factory farms. Making meat and animal products into a commodity isn't helpful for the animals, the ecosystem or even the consumer..
This commodification of bison and pronghorn meat following European settlement nearly led to these animals extinctions in only a few decades, despite their having been hunted for meat, clothes, tools, etc... by indigenous peoples for centuries without them threatening the animals with extinction from commercial hunting..
Then we need to look at our patterns of overconsumption and our society promoting overpopulation of humans and the resulting excuse that industrial methods of rapid rate animal raising (growth hormones, feedlots, grain-fed, etc...) are needed to support the consumption patterns of an ever expanding human population..
These are the myths that need to be exposed, not just promotion of veganism without looking at more entrenched problems of how our society operates, specifically with industrial methods of food production, this applies to the soy, wheat and corn sectors of agribusiness also..
Here's a partial list of those factory farms that funded the No on 2 measure, we can all show them our appreciation by boycotting these cruelty loving corporations!!
From SF Gate;
"So, as to the real question: Would Prop 2 ban reasonable practices? For this, I would look to farms whose humane practices I know and trust to see which side they're on. Problem is, both Yes and No on 2 claim to have small farmers on their side. And indeed both the Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee cite small farmer opposition among their reasons for endorsing a no vote.
Stumped, I turned to the No on 2 site, looked at the "family farms and businesses" they cite as opponents. None were among the brands I choose from at my local worker-owned co-op (Rainbow Grocery, one of the easiest and purest green things I do each week). So I Googled a few names that sounded especially family-farmish. Of the six I chose, four were out-of-state businesses (Hickman's in Arizona, Willamette Egg Farms in Oregon, and Rose Acre Farms in Indiana). Sanchez Ranch is actually a hunting ranch in New Mexico. C B Nichols Egg Ranch is in Acadia, but it's listed as an "importer." Demler Egg Ranch is in San Jacinto and has 35 employees. Hurray! One genuine family farm!
After this exercise, I am inclined to believe that honest producers of cage-free eggs, Petaluma farmer Steve Mahrt's claims to the Chronicle notwithstanding, would generally not be hurt by this measure. For that reason, and because big business has cried wolf—forgive the dark pun—once too many times with regard to reasonable regulations, I'm leaning towards voting yes on 2."
here's the article;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?&entry_id=31576&type=green
This proposition now will cost some of the larger factory farm operations as they'll need to widen and expand their cage spaces (if they want to sell in CA!), that were previously set for the bare minimum of moving around space needed for the animals, all in the interest of efficiency. In this case the bare minimum as followed by the factory farming operations wasn't even giving most animals room to turn around in a circle..
This proposition could also help out the smaller free range operations now more on a level playing field as the larger corporate factory farms will need to play fair and give the animals more room or reduce their numbers. Either way the animals are given a little bit more leeway than they had before, and every little bit helps..
Truly if it were up to me there would be no more factory farms at all, and people could either hunt wild game for meat themselves or try their hand at a little backyard chicken coop and fenced in yardspace if they so desire. Bringing back the small farmer and raising animals that are part of the family farm is a world away from the mass production of cattle at the corporate factory farms. Making meat and animal products into a commodity isn't helpful for the animals, the ecosystem or even the consumer..
This commodification of bison and pronghorn meat following European settlement nearly led to these animals extinctions in only a few decades, despite their having been hunted for meat, clothes, tools, etc... by indigenous peoples for centuries without them threatening the animals with extinction from commercial hunting..
Then we need to look at our patterns of overconsumption and our society promoting overpopulation of humans and the resulting excuse that industrial methods of rapid rate animal raising (growth hormones, feedlots, grain-fed, etc...) are needed to support the consumption patterns of an ever expanding human population..
These are the myths that need to be exposed, not just promotion of veganism without looking at more entrenched problems of how our society operates, specifically with industrial methods of food production, this applies to the soy, wheat and corn sectors of agribusiness also..
Here's a partial list of those factory farms that funded the No on 2 measure, we can all show them our appreciation by boycotting these cruelty loving corporations!!
From SF Gate;
"So, as to the real question: Would Prop 2 ban reasonable practices? For this, I would look to farms whose humane practices I know and trust to see which side they're on. Problem is, both Yes and No on 2 claim to have small farmers on their side. And indeed both the Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee cite small farmer opposition among their reasons for endorsing a no vote.
Stumped, I turned to the No on 2 site, looked at the "family farms and businesses" they cite as opponents. None were among the brands I choose from at my local worker-owned co-op (Rainbow Grocery, one of the easiest and purest green things I do each week). So I Googled a few names that sounded especially family-farmish. Of the six I chose, four were out-of-state businesses (Hickman's in Arizona, Willamette Egg Farms in Oregon, and Rose Acre Farms in Indiana). Sanchez Ranch is actually a hunting ranch in New Mexico. C B Nichols Egg Ranch is in Acadia, but it's listed as an "importer." Demler Egg Ranch is in San Jacinto and has 35 employees. Hurray! One genuine family farm!
After this exercise, I am inclined to believe that honest producers of cage-free eggs, Petaluma farmer Steve Mahrt's claims to the Chronicle notwithstanding, would generally not be hurt by this measure. For that reason, and because big business has cried wolf—forgive the dark pun—once too many times with regard to reasonable regulations, I'm leaning towards voting yes on 2."
here's the article;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?&entry_id=31576&type=green
Your overview is far too complex for the simple minds that embrace fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is simple (unrealistic) solutions to complex problems, akin to living in la-la land. Your post makes good sense, just don't expect that it will reach a simple mind, sorry to say.
And don't play dumb, OF COURSE the meat industry is going to fight ANY attempts to get them to change their ways, no matter how slight. If they spend money fighting this bullshit, HSUS and the other animal welfare corporations will have to spend more money to fight back, and that's millions of dollars of animal welfare money that could've otherwise be spent on what the industries are REALLY afraid of--promoting veganism.
Perhaps making an issue of the problem (via a proposition, for one) IS a promotion of new eating habits and might affect some people, or many, that way. How would you promote veganism? Exposure, education?
You're right, it is a promotion of new eating habits. It is an encouragement to the vast majority of people to eat "cage-free" eggs and "humanely raised" animal products (which are both total misnomers, the latter being completely nonexistent).
Hmmm, you think possibly some people might've been informed/inspired by the information that came out in the campaign to rethink and/or redo some dietary habits, in the direction of vegetarian/vegan? People utilize information in a variety of ways. No telling the repercussions of the Prop 2 campaign.
Gary Francione - ugh.
There are more roads to cutting back/cutting out meat and other animal products than Gary's one and only rigid road. Economics, coupled with information about meat's adverse effects, could well be the catalyst for many to cut back or cut out.
Meanwhile, those of you who are sooooooooooo sure you know the one and only SIMPLE, CLEAR CUT solution, why haven't you made the world vegan by now? You have all the answers. Isn't that a better use of your time than criticizing those who don't agree with you?
There are more roads to cutting back/cutting out meat and other animal products than Gary's one and only rigid road. Economics, coupled with information about meat's adverse effects, could well be the catalyst for many to cut back or cut out.
Meanwhile, those of you who are sooooooooooo sure you know the one and only SIMPLE, CLEAR CUT solution, why haven't you made the world vegan by now? You have all the answers. Isn't that a better use of your time than criticizing those who don't agree with you?
No, no. You & Gary, et al, need to fundraise and get activists from those who see things as you do. Are you, Gary, et al trying to convince HSUS, et al to see things *your* way? GOOD LUCK! Get out there and do it YOUR way. Afterall, your way will make the whole world vegan. Isn't that better than complaining how others are doing things? Find the people who think like you do and get to work. You know what Margaret Mead said: "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has"? No excuses now. Make this world vegan.
You are encouraging people to continue consuming animal products, making them think it's okay because it's "humane" now, and you're therefore preventing others from making veganism more widespread. So no, we're not going to stop telling people how wrong this pathetic welfare reform crap is.
I don't understand. You (and others) know how to make the world vegan. Yet, instead of making the world vegan you spend your time and energy trying to convince people who don't see it your way. This doesn't make sense.
Doesn't exactly take up a lot of time to make a post on indybay...
Shifting the world in a more vegan direction requires lots of money unfortunately, and it won't be done if big animal welfare corporations are sucking dry all the funds and activist hours in working with animal exploiters to abuse the animals slightly less, meanwhile still slicing off their beaks, keeping them in extreme confinement (still), and slaughtering them brutally.
Shifting the world in a more vegan direction requires lots of money unfortunately, and it won't be done if big animal welfare corporations are sucking dry all the funds and activist hours in working with animal exploiters to abuse the animals slightly less, meanwhile still slicing off their beaks, keeping them in extreme confinement (still), and slaughtering them brutally.
There are significant errors with both ideals of reforming factory farms vs. global veganism. We can argue back & forth about which is more effective and who is wasting more time, the point of industrial agriculture and factory farms being unsustainable being missed..
Certain regions of North America are not suited for farming because of climate, soils and other conditions. Any attempts to convert rangeland in Nebraska or Nevada into soybean plantations for the globalist vegan movement is worse than allowing hooved mammals (ungulates) like cattle, goats, elk and pronghorn to roam and graze what grows there naturally, instead of converting everything into a soybean farm because the globalist vegans demand their protein in vegetable form only..
The problem is imported cattle cannot digest many plants and the ranchers are in a hurry to fatten them up for market, so now we have industrial feedlots where cattle gorge on corn and other grains they would never eat in nature, and then are injected with rBGH (bovine growth hormone) to speed their development even more. During this process at the feedlot, unimaginable cruelties occur, cattle trampling and laying in their collective feces puddles (Where does that antibiotic resistant E. coli 0157:H7 come from? Any guesses??) within the muddy feedlot floor matrix, no freedom of movement, tight spaces and feedlot workers pushing them around with forklifts, tazers and other hurtful devices as if they were meat-making robots that lacked feeling..
If it were up to me i would plant thermite around the entire industrial feedlot in Garden City, Kansas and send the entire operation sky high (confined cattle, undocumented workers, shift managers and all!!), though then i would share the cell nextdoor to Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski in Supermax and listen to his stories about "grandfather rabbit". That may not be so bad, though in reality i wouldn't get to talk to my role model and would be in isolation elsewhere for committing this act..
Seriously though, i have no such plans for this sort of violence and continue to boycott industrial agriculture and factory farms as much as possible. Though i am not vegan, i usually avoid animal products, except for insect and roadkill, which i consume with relish when it is safe..
Other ideas besides reforming industrial factory farms and global veganism include a return to what worked for centuries in North America before Columbus, cattle and confined chickens arrived on these shores; good ol' fashioned hunting of wild native animals without commercial hunting for profit..
How is it that indigenous North American "Indians" were able to survive here for so many centuries without having to lock their animals up in cages? There were plenty of bisons, elk, pronghorn, rabbits, salmon and other sources of animal protein that lived free and healthy until they were respectfully harvested for food by tribal hunters. Overhunting of these animals for profit or greed by individuals was subjected to harsh punishment, as it was akin to pushing the entire tribe into starvation. Get greedy and kill too many elk for profit, you may get yourself killed in the process by the regulators who monitored the hunt. That response took care of the greed factor quite nicely. The motto is and will always be "Take only what you need, nothing more." Greed gets the guillotine..
We can and will return to the ecological sanity of what existed in North America prior to Euro-american settlement, even if every industrial feedlot needs to be reduced to a pile of ashes. Same goes for the industrial soybean plantations that the globalist vegans are trying to promote as a realistic alternative for protein..
Certain regions of North America are not suited for farming because of climate, soils and other conditions. Any attempts to convert rangeland in Nebraska or Nevada into soybean plantations for the globalist vegan movement is worse than allowing hooved mammals (ungulates) like cattle, goats, elk and pronghorn to roam and graze what grows there naturally, instead of converting everything into a soybean farm because the globalist vegans demand their protein in vegetable form only..
The problem is imported cattle cannot digest many plants and the ranchers are in a hurry to fatten them up for market, so now we have industrial feedlots where cattle gorge on corn and other grains they would never eat in nature, and then are injected with rBGH (bovine growth hormone) to speed their development even more. During this process at the feedlot, unimaginable cruelties occur, cattle trampling and laying in their collective feces puddles (Where does that antibiotic resistant E. coli 0157:H7 come from? Any guesses??) within the muddy feedlot floor matrix, no freedom of movement, tight spaces and feedlot workers pushing them around with forklifts, tazers and other hurtful devices as if they were meat-making robots that lacked feeling..
If it were up to me i would plant thermite around the entire industrial feedlot in Garden City, Kansas and send the entire operation sky high (confined cattle, undocumented workers, shift managers and all!!), though then i would share the cell nextdoor to Ted "Unabomber" Kaczynski in Supermax and listen to his stories about "grandfather rabbit". That may not be so bad, though in reality i wouldn't get to talk to my role model and would be in isolation elsewhere for committing this act..
Seriously though, i have no such plans for this sort of violence and continue to boycott industrial agriculture and factory farms as much as possible. Though i am not vegan, i usually avoid animal products, except for insect and roadkill, which i consume with relish when it is safe..
Other ideas besides reforming industrial factory farms and global veganism include a return to what worked for centuries in North America before Columbus, cattle and confined chickens arrived on these shores; good ol' fashioned hunting of wild native animals without commercial hunting for profit..
How is it that indigenous North American "Indians" were able to survive here for so many centuries without having to lock their animals up in cages? There were plenty of bisons, elk, pronghorn, rabbits, salmon and other sources of animal protein that lived free and healthy until they were respectfully harvested for food by tribal hunters. Overhunting of these animals for profit or greed by individuals was subjected to harsh punishment, as it was akin to pushing the entire tribe into starvation. Get greedy and kill too many elk for profit, you may get yourself killed in the process by the regulators who monitored the hunt. That response took care of the greed factor quite nicely. The motto is and will always be "Take only what you need, nothing more." Greed gets the guillotine..
We can and will return to the ecological sanity of what existed in North America prior to Euro-american settlement, even if every industrial feedlot needs to be reduced to a pile of ashes. Same goes for the industrial soybean plantations that the globalist vegans are trying to promote as a realistic alternative for protein..
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network