View Single Post
  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
pearl pearl is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:36:17 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________ __________
> >> >> >> >> From: diderot >
> >> >> >> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> >> >> >> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> >> >> >> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
> >> >> >> >> Message-ID: >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
> >> >> >thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
> >> >> >harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
> >> >> >elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
> >> >> >writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
> >> >> >proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
> >> >> >farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
> >> >> >are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
> >> >> >left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
> >> >> >sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
> >> >>
> >> >> Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
> >> >> be dead,
> >> >
> >> >Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
> >> >as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?
> >>
> >> I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
> >> get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
> >> Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
> >> when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
> >> should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
> >> the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
> >> draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
> >> afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
> >> water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
> >> what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
> >> mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
> >> are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.

> >
> >That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
> >next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.

>
> How would they know what was happening? How would they
> know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
> in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
> by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
> would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
> to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?


Hypothetical frogs are capable of anything, doncha know.

> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
> >> >> along.
> >> >
> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
> >>
> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,

> >
> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,

>
> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
> damn funny.


I've plenty of reason to believe that. You dis-believe without reason.

> >and an unabashed propagandist.
> >
> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> >> upstream.

> >
> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
> >Why don't you do a little research?

>
> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
> where do you think they come from?


I don't think that 'they' are there!

> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
> and sulk away from it.


You haven't answered the question.

> >And if his claims were true, a
> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.

>
> Who would document it? Why?


Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..

> >> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> >> >> deaths caused by rice production.
> >> >
> >> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
> >> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
> >>
> >> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
> >> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
> >> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!

> >
> >diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.

>
> Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
> people to believe otherwise.


You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.