Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:00 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

[email protected] wrote :

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:55:01 -0600, MarkW
wrote:

I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper
from today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess
i was just shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out
of line. At the end of the letter is his email and I plan to
email him and maybe others want to do the same. Of course as
you can see the way he talks about his sister he seems very
arrogant:


It was HUMOR, and he even says in the article that he's a
humorist!

Take 25 cents and buy a cheap sense of humor!

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics,
Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood
factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable
Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel
Ball Bearings


Yeah, there's no way to have a modern life without them, and
there's no way to live without killing, unless they have a way to
become such a highly spiritual being that they don't need to eat
living things anymore. ( whatever

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future.


Absolutely, supply and demand at work. Want to keep elephants
from becoming extinct? Farm them and eat them! And while you're
at it, you should breed them smaller and smaller so they don't
eat everything in sight.

In their natural habitat they destroy jungles and forests. Shame
on them!

People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being
conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can
not do it by being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat.


And all you gotta do is feed them GRASS. How bad is THAT? They're
vegans! LOL!

That reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw: Save an animal, eat
a vegan.

From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.


Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

Due to the influence
of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the
flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice
based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass
raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than
soy or rice products. ·


AND if you soy milk drinking women are wondering why you're so
cranky, the soy interferes with estrogen absorption in the body.
That's why Asian women are so flat chested and have less breast
cancer because of it. But for those of us who NEED our hormones,
that's not a good thing.


--
Ms. Libertarian - United States of America




  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message . 97.142...
[email protected] wrote :


From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.


Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!


'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

.. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.

[ '..while about 10% (3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial
surface is cropland, nearly half of this land is used to grow
food for livestock. ' ]

Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
.......'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'Animal Enemies

[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.'

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html

Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html




  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:04 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message . 97.142...
[email protected] wrote :


From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.


Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!


'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced


It didn't take you long to change the subject. Where grain is produced
for cattle, and for you, it's harder on the environment than the grass raised
animal products we're discussing:
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:00:33 -0500, Ms Libertarian wrote:

[email protected] wrote :

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:55:01 -0600, MarkW
wrote:

I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper
from today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess
i was just shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out
of line. At the end of the letter is his email and I plan to
email him and maybe others want to do the same. Of course as
you can see the way he talks about his sister he seems very
arrogant:


It was HUMOR, and he even says in the article that he's a
humorist!

Take 25 cents and buy a cheap sense of humor!


Veg*ns tend to be the sort of people who believe absurd things.
I've noticed that they invent fantasies and ideas, and then try to
apply them to reality and amusingly expect other people to go along
with it all. But other people don't always humor the poor kooks, and
sometimes point out one or more of the absurdities. Such assaults
with reality conflict with what they have chosen to believe, causing
the great discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Their only options
appear to be:

1. accept the info and apply it to their way of thinking, which is
something I've never known any of them to do.

2. become defensive, and cling to their absurd beliefs by inventing
more things--often absurd as well--in an attempt to back them up.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics,
Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood
factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable
Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel
Ball Bearings


Yeah, there's no way to have a modern life without them, and
there's no way to live without killing, unless they have a way to
become such a highly spiritual being that they don't need to eat
living things anymore. ( whatever


Right. If and when livestock are provided with lives of positive
value, it's made possible by the consumers of their products, but
certainly not by vegans. So if people want to contribute to better
lives for farm animals with their lifestyle they need to be more
conscientious consumers of animals products, *not* vegans.
Vegans only contribute to the deaths of wild animals, not to the
lives and deaths of livestock.

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future.


Absolutely, supply and demand at work. Want to keep elephants
from becoming extinct? Farm them and eat them!


Buffalo are an example.

And while you're
at it, you should breed them smaller and smaller so they don't
eat everything in sight.

In their natural habitat they destroy jungles and forests. Shame
on them!


All that will change...humans are going to do it instead :-)

People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being
conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can
not do it by being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat.


And all you gotta do is feed them GRASS. How bad is THAT? They're
vegans! LOL!

That reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw: Save an animal, eat
a vegan.

From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.


Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!


That's an area where we can see that vegans care more about
promoting veganism than they do about human influence on animals.
Even when animal products cause less deaths, and are better for
the natural environment, vegans would still promote veganism
instead, and might even dishonestly/disgustingly try to prevent
people from understanding the truth.

Due to the influence
of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the
flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice
based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than
hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass
raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths,
better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than
soy or rice products. ·


AND if you soy milk drinking women are wondering why you're so
cranky, the soy interferes with estrogen absorption in the body.
That's why Asian women are so flat chested and have less breast
cancer because of it. But for those of us who NEED our hormones,
that's not a good thing.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-05-2006, 10:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:02:39 -0500, Ms Libertarian wrote:

"Marc Frisch" wrote :

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


All living beings are mortal and suffer when they die.


Yes, and that's something that should always be kept in mind.
Many many creatures suffer more than animals who are raised
for food, and almost all of them should. What type death could
cause less suffering than humane human slaughter? So we see
that the method of death is no worse for the animals we raise
to eat than it is for almost everything else, and we see that
raising animals for food *provides* life for billions of them, not
cheat them out of something better. That being the case, it
still remains a mystery what other than the "aras" themselves
would benefit from their objective to eliminate animals raised
for food, if anything, and why we should promote that instead.

It is the way of the Force.


What's the Force?

Sure animals should be humanely treated and killed.


They aren't being cheated out of any life as "aras" would
like people to believe they are. From there some of us can
consider which of their lives would be of positive value and
which would not, and others of them can not. It's amusing,
and it's pathetic that "aras" who want to pretend that they
have some interest in animals, are not even capable of
considering whether or not billions of animals' lives would be
worth living. But they can't do that first basic thing...LOL...
even though they like to consider themselves some sort of
authority on human influence on animals. The absurdity begins
right at the beginning...

I'm against
what I've heard about premarin production, for example, and wish
they could manufacture a synthetic form of it so that mares
didn't have to be abused like that.


They spend at least half their life grazing in huge pastures
from what little I've seen about it. If they don't have lives
of positive value overall, then they should be made to be imo,
so it works out well for them and humans both. Why not?


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 12:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

[email protected] wrote in message news
On Sat, 6 May 2006 14:18:01 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message . 97.142...
[email protected] wrote :


From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!


'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced


It didn't take you long to change the subject. Where grain is produced
for cattle, and for you, it's harder on the environment than the grass raised
animal products we're discussing:


'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.

.. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."

In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.

[ '..while about 10% (3.7 billion acres) of the Earth's terrestrial
surface is cropland, nearly half of this land is used to grow
food for livestock. ' ]

Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.
.......'
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

'The Forest Service defines range as "land that provides or is capable
of providing forage for grazing or browsing animals [read: 'livestock']."
By this definition more than 80% of the West qualifies as range,
including a complex array of more than 40 major ecosystem types,
all of which have been significantly degraded by ranching. ..
...
Numerous historical accounts do confirm drastic, detrimental changes
in plant and animal life, soil, water, and fire conditions throughout most
of the West. These reports progressively establish livestock grazing as
the biggest single perpetrator of these changes, particularly considering
that it was the only significant land use over most of the West.

One of the most useful and informative descriptions of the early West
was that of Meriweather Lewis and William Clark on their famous
expedition across the northern Midwest, Rockies, and Pacific
Northwest from 1804 to 1806 (Thwaites 1959). Their descriptions of
the unconquered West are of a world we can scarcely imagine:
landscapes filled with wildlife; great diversities of lush vegetation; highly
productive, free-flowing rivers, creeks, and springs; abundant, dark,
fertile soil; unaltered, unimpeded fire and other natural processes. Of
the Montana plains, one excerpt from Clark reads, "we observe in
every direction Buffalow, Elk Antelopes & Mule Deer inumerable and
so jintle that we could approach them near with great ease." Another
states, We saw a great number of buffaloe, Elk, common and Black
tailed deer, goats [pronghorn] beaver and wolves. ..

In the West today only ungrazed Yellowstone National Park supports
nearly this variety and density of large wild animals. ..

Lewis and Clark's and other historic journals attest that buffalo, elk,
deer, bighorns, pronghorn, mountain goats, moose, horses, grizzly
and black bears, wolves, foxes, cougars, bobcats, beaver, muskrats,
river otters, fish, porcupines, wild turkeys and other "game" birds,
waterfowl, snakes, prairie dogs and other rodents, most insects, and
the vast majority of wild animals were all many times more abundant
then than now. So too were native plants; the journals describe a
great abundance and diversity of grasses and herbaceous vegetation,
willows and deciduous trees, cattails, rushes, sedges, wild grapes,
chokecherries, currants, wild cherries and plums, gooseberries,
"red" and "yellow" berries, service berries, flax, dock, wild garlic and
onions, sunflowers, wild roses, tansy, honeysuckle, mints, and more,
a large number being edible. Most of these plants have been depleted
through the many effects of livestock grazing for 100 years and are
today comparatively scarce.
...
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter3.html

'Animal Enemies

[i]n the eyes of graziers, basically there are 3 requirements for
an acceptable environment -- grass, water, and livestock to
eat and drink them. All else is questionable, if not expendable,
a possible hindrance to profit and power.

The ranching establishment's assault on the environment,
therefore, includes campaigns against a huge number and
wide variety of animals. Most of the score or so native large
mammal species in the West have been decimated by ranching,
both intentionally through slaughtering efforts and indirectly
through the harmful effects of livestock grazing and ranching
developments. Indeed, most larger and a great many smaller
animal species are in some way assailed as enemies. The
mass carnage carried out for the sake of privately owned
livestock continues today throughout the grazed 70% of the
West, including public lands, and even in adjacent ungrazed
areas.

Though definitions given by ranching advocates vary, most
animal enemies fall into 4 main subdivisions: Carnivores and
omnivores are (1) predators if able to kill a sheep, calf, or
goat. Herbivores are (2) competitors if they eat enough forage
or browse to decrease the amount available to livestock.
Many smaller animal species are (3) pests if they occur in
large enough numbers to affect production in some manner.
And a huge number of animals are considered (4) no- goods,
inherently "no good" because they are perceived as possessing
some offensive characteristic.'

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page7.html

Next page-
http://www.wasteofthewest.com/chapter4/page8.html






  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 12:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message 7.142...
"pearl" wrote :

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in
message
. 97.142...
[email protected] wrote :


From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!


'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
of the soil erosion in the United States,


So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.


Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares - about 272 million hectares pasture,
and about 30 million hectares for cultivated feed grains.

Read on..

'Historically, soil surface cover from crop residue has been
known to reduce rainfall energy responsible for soil erosion.
The primary benefits of crop residues are reduction of soil
erosion, improvement of soil properties, and reduction of
soil surface sealing effect. Crop residue is increasingly being
used as a major tool to reduce the loss of one of our most
valuable natural resources, topsoil. Conservation practices
encourage the use residue as a protective blanket from rainfall
and to enrich soil structure by increased organic matter content.
...'
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/pub...O_115%3D166033

Emphasis added *:

'Restoring Soil Carbon Should Be Top Global Priority
Source: Ohio State University
6-10-4

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority among the global community, according
to a viewpoint article in this week's issue of the journal Science.

The amount of carbon that can be restored in the world's
degraded agricultural soils will directly influence global food
security and climate change within our lifetime, said Rattan Lal,
author of the article and director of the carbon management
and sequestration center at Ohio State University.

Scientists estimate that, since the mechanization of agriculture
began a few hundred years ago, some 78 billion metric tons -
more than 171 trillion pounds - of carbon once trapped in the
soil have been lost to the atmosphere in the form of carbon
dioxide (CO2).

"Converting natural ecosystems to fields for crop production
and pastures depletes a soil's carbon content by as much as
75 percent," Lal said. "And the amount of carbon we emit into
the atmosphere each year from industrial activity is on the rise."

With too little carbon in the soil, crop production is inefficient.
Right now, the world's agricultural soils are alarmingly depleted
of carbon, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, south and central
Asia and the Caribbean and Andean regions, Lal said.

He calls for adopting "recommended management practices"
for increasing and keeping carbon in farmed soils. These
practices include no-till farming - ***leaving residue from the
previous year's crops on the field***; agroforestry - planting
trees or shrubs on or around cropland to enhance the quality
of the soil; planting cover crops, which protect the soil from
erosion during normal growing seasons; and using nutrients
such as manure, compost or biosolids to fertilize crops.

Evidence shows that following such practices greatly increases
and sustains crop yields.

Lal cited an 18-year experiment in Kenya: Farm fields managed
by regular farming practices - tilling the land, using no fertilizer,
leaving fields bare in the non-growing season - produced about
1 ton of maize and beans per hectare (a hectare is about the size
of two football fields). But fields treated with manure, planted
with cover crops and covered with mulch yielded six times that
amount.

"This is the type of quantum jump in crop yield needed at the
continental scale to ensure food security in Sub-Saharan Africa,"
said Lal, who is also a professor of natural resources. "Soil needs
enough carbon in order to hold water and nutrients and to grow
crops efficiently.

"But ***completely removing crop residue for animal fodder***
and fuel is the norm in many African and Asian countries," he
continued. "This drastically reduces soil carbon levels, and we
cannot achieve global food security without returning crop residues
and putting carbon back in soil. Both are necessary for improving
soil quality."
..
"Soil carbon sequestration is a natural, cost-effective and
environment-friendly process," he continued. "Once sequestered,
carbon remains in the soil as long as restorative land use, no-till
farming and other recommended management practices are
followed."
....'
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/505448/

Same applies for the U.S, and elsewhere. Note:

'This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.cosi.org.uk/web/sa/saweb....riefing_Sheets...

the ecologist
determined. On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss
averages 13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are
eroding at a slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare
per year. But erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely
overgrazed pastures, and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is
being overgrazed. '
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html


So if the ranchers are smart, they'll stop that.


How do you propose that be done without substantially reducing the
herd? And do you think that losing 6 tons per hectare p/a is alright?

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.


Are you advocating not having anymore livestock? Kill them all?


Stop breeding them.

Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects.


So did the introduction of people. Kill them too?


People were living in those areas over 200 years ago.

It keeps coming back to homo sapiens hatred with you guys,
doesn't it.


Where did that come from?

Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.


Better get rid of all the mammals then.


There was no such problem with the native species.

.. recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
..'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. ..


No agriculture either?


... Historically, the demand for grazing land is a major cause
of worldwide clearing of forest of most types. Currently,
livestock production, fuel wood gathering, lumbering, and
clearing for crops are denuding a conservatively estimated
40 million acres of the Earth's forestland each year. .. '

Half of all arable land is currently being used to grow feed
for livestock. Were that land used for food, there would be
no need to use forest land to grow any crops, food or feed.





  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 03:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

pearl wrote:

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message 7.142...

"pearl" wrote :


"Ms Libertarian" wrote in
message
96.97.142...

[email protected] wrote :

From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
of the soil erosion in the United States,


So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.



Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares


You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****. There
are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
in the U.S. Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.

And it DOESN'T MATTER if a huge percentage of it is
used to produced food for livestock - that's how we
choose to use it, and it's our business.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 04:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message .net...
pearl wrote:

"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message 7.142...

"pearl" wrote :


"Ms Libertarian" wrote in
message
96.97.142...

[email protected] wrote :

From a grass raised dairy cow
people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
of the soil erosion in the United States,

So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.



Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares


You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****.


Projection.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

There
are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
in the U.S.


'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.


Projection.

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

And it DOESN'T MATTER if a huge percentage of it is
used to produced food for livestock - that's how we
choose to use it, and it's our business.


"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been
poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize
we cannot eat money." - Chief Seattle


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 05:02 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,057
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

[email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 00:55:01 -0600, MarkW wrote:

I am attaching a link and the article of the Denver newspaper from
today, Saturday. It is very anti-vegetarian and I guess i was just
shocked at some of the comments made. He's so out of line. At the
end of the letter is his email and I plan to email him and maybe
others want to do the same. Of course as you can see the way he talks
about his sister he seems very arrogant:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...658338,00.html


Do you understand the difference between an newspaper ARTICLE and a
COLUMN? A columnist writes his or her opinion. A journalist writes
articles that are based on researched facts. This is America. We get to
speak, think, and write our opinions here. We also get to disagree with
others opinions. But don't get mixed up and call this an article, cuz
it ain't.



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:46 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:24:45 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

"Goo" wrote in message .net...

There
are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
in the U.S.


'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
..
About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from
grains and 15 million tons from forage crops.
..
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.


Wow! That's a lot better than I'd thought. I feel better
about livestock production after reading that such a small
percentage of the land used to support them is needed to
grow grain. It's probably bullshit, but thanks.

[...]
"Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been
poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize
we cannot eat money." - Chief Seattle


It may have just been a stupid idea that came to him as the
result of some bad smoke...unless he was a moron all the time...
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:53 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:48:16 -0500, Ms Libertarian wrote:

[email protected] wrote :

Right. If and when livestock are provided with lives of
positive
value, it's made possible by the consumers of their products,
but certainly not by vegans.


Yeah, if vegans had their way, we'd have sacred cows walking around
the streets starving, like in India.


They pretend stuff like that, but since PeTA kills so many unwanted
dogs and cats we certainly don't have any reason to believe that "ar"
would allow livestock to just roam around like they don't let dogs and
cats. If they believed the crap they pretend to they'd be freeing dogs
and cats, or not catching them up in the first place, but they would't
be killing them. To continue with an examination of why it's bullshit
we only need to consider the fact that they never turn animals loose
like that, meaning it's a bad idea and some of them are aware of it.
"ar" is all a bunch of garbage for people to make money with when
your break it all the way down, afaik. I can think of one example of
situations where "aras" release some animals, and it's always a
horrible thing that causes more suffering than would have been
if they had just minded their own business--as is true of their
terrorism toward medical research--but we never hear of them
creating thriving populations of free animals from once domesticated
ones because it's a stupid idea and will never happen. Unfortunately
there are enough people who don't/can't think it through, that "aras"
can get millions of dollars each year to support their bullshit.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

On Sun, 7 May 2006 12:19:41 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Newswise) - Restoring soil carbon levels
should be a top priority


Sounds like a job for cow shit.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2006, 05:48 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 213
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

pearl wrote:
"Leif Erikson" wrote in message .net...

pearl wrote:


"Ms Libertarian" wrote in message 7.142...


"pearl" wrote :



"Ms Libertarian" wrote in
message
news:[email protected] .196.97.142...


[email protected] wrote :

From a grass raised dairy cow

people get thousands of dairy servings.

Yeah, AND meat. What could be more environmentally friendly.
Input grass and get meat and dairy products!

'.. Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much
of the soil erosion in the United States,

So is the growing of crops, ace. You grow things and it turns
soil to food, it gets shipped off and someone somewhere else eats
it and poops it out in a different place, then guess what. It
turns back to soil. Whoa! Closed loop ecosystem.


Firstly, in the U.S, the total land area used for food crops
is about 13 million hectares. For livestock, it's more than
302 million hectares


You're completely full of SHIT, you lying ****.



Projection.


Yes you do, ****.



There
are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL under cultivation
in the U.S.



More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population


False. There are only 190.2 million hectares TOTAL
under cultivation in the U.S., you lying ****.



Your numbers are SHIT, and so are you.



Projection.


You project shit.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2006, 07:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food
nyx nyx is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 34
Default Anti-Vegetarian Article in Denver paper

[email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 20:02:39 -0500, Ms Libertarian wrote:


"Marc Frisch" wrote :


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

What's your point? Every vegans knows that. The fact that
you can't avoid causing suffering is not a very good excuse
to cause as much as you want.


All living beings are mortal and suffer when they die.



Yes, and that's something that should always be kept in mind.
Many many creatures suffer more than animals who are raised
for food, and almost all of them should. What type death could
cause less suffering than humane human slaughter? So we see
that the method of death is no worse for the animals we raise
to eat than it is for almost everything else, and we see that
raising animals for food *provides* life for billions of them, not
cheat them out of something better. That being the case, it
still remains a mystery what other than the "aras" themselves
would benefit from their objective to eliminate animals raised
for food, if anything, and why we should promote that instead.


It is the way of the Force.



What's the Force?


Sure animals should be humanely treated and killed.



They aren't being cheated out of any life as "aras" would
like people to believe they are. From there some of us can
consider which of their lives would be of positive value and
which would not, and others of them can not. It's amusing,
and it's pathetic that "aras" who want to pretend that they
have some interest in animals, are not even capable of
considering whether or not billions of animals' lives would be
worth living. But they can't do that first basic thing...LOL...
even though they like to consider themselves some sort of
authority on human influence on animals. The absurdity begins
right at the beginning...


I'm against
what I've heard about premarin production, for example, and wish
they could manufacture a synthetic form of it so that mares
didn't have to be abused like that.



They spend at least half their life grazing in huge pastures
from what little I've seen about it. If they don't have lives
of positive value overall, then they should be made to be imo,
so it works out well for them and humans both. Why not?

those who want heart disease, eat the animals...those who do not, do
not. There's more to the Vegan story than animal suffering, but then you
don't care about THAT part....


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving - Article by Ryan Berry Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 109 14-10-2013 12:03 AM
The First Vegetarian Thanksgiving - Article by Ryan Berry Season-- Vegan 0 01-10-2013 12:42 AM
Another interesting article in the Big Paper Andrew Goldfinch Wine 30 07-08-2005 01:23 PM
SD article in today's local news paper's food section Samartha Deva Sourdough 22 04-03-2004 08:02 PM
i think this little jack denver is john denver because when ZBOXMAN DANVILLE,CA FREE COMPUTER RECYCLING FREE General Cooking 5 01-02-2004 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017