Clubbing seals and eating steak (PG)

[LaCroix]

As an aside, where would leather come from? Cow hide is THE source for leather worldwide. (Strangely, you rarely see those hipster vegetarians (the true ones are different) stop wearing their precious shoes and bags...)

[Broomstick]

As an aside, where would leather come from? Cow hide is THE source for leather worldwide.

Only because we kill so many cattle for food it's a relatively cheap and plentiful source. There are plenty of other leathers. In fact, at work, on a regular basis I encounter leather made from pig, deer, moose, goat, sheep, and alligator. I have also, over the past couple of months, handled emu, ostrich, and kangaroo leather. In the past I have handled leather from from horse, zebra, and several types of gazelle. You can also get sharkskin leather. Pretty much anything with a hide - mammal, reptile, bird, and even some fish - can be a source of leather though some are better suited to various tasks than others.

[madd0ct0r]

even seals make good leather, or so i've heard

as for dairy cattle to beef:
Looking at the US market in particular, this seems to be a good summary (albeit from 2002).
in particular;

Market cattle, non-fed beef and dairy animals supply 20 percent of the total beef produced in the United States.

That statistic is including non-fed beef - cows running around in fields.
And typically, for the low grade beef comng off an old milker, we're looking at hamburgers. Young dairy bullocks might get upgraded to a proper cut, but then they might also get upgraded to veal.
Still 80% of american beef is produced on feedlots, eating grain that could go to feed humans. It's not necessary, not is it environmentally sensible.

As as for 'wreck the economy' as an argument - where was that sympathy for the seal clubbers?

[LaCroix]

As an aside, where would leather come from? Cow hide is THE source for leather worldwide.

Only because we kill so many cattle for food it's a relatively cheap and plentiful source. There are plenty of other leathers. In fact, at work, on a regular basis I encounter leather made from pig, deer, moose, goat, sheep, and alligator. I have also, over the past couple of months, handled emu, ostrich, and kangaroo leather. In the past I have handled leather from from horse, zebra, and several types of gazelle. You can also get sharkskin leather. Pretty much anything with a hide - mammal, reptile, bird, and even some fish - can be a source of leather though some are better suited to various tasks than others.

I'm well aware of that (I'm especially fond of stingray leather, myself.) - you're missing my point. If we stop eating beef to placate maddoctor's philosophic scruples, we immediately lose that supply, which would lead to either killing cattle just for their skin, or killing of other animals just for the skin.

Which, in my opinion, is morally worse than killing an animal to eat it and use its skin, as well.

[Thanas]

even seals make good leather, or so i've heard

I see you once more skipped the majority of my arguments here. And for leather, I refer you to LaCroix post.

as for dairy cattle to beef:
Looking at the US market in particular, this seems to be a good summary (albeit from 2002).
in particular;

Market cattle, non-fed beef and dairy animals supply 20 percent of the total beef produced in the United States.

That statistic is including non-fed beef - cows running around in fields.
And typically, for the low grade beef comng off an old milker, we're looking at hamburgers. Young dairy bullocks might get upgraded to a proper cut, but then they might also get upgraded to veal.

Well, considering that we can double that amount due to the number of bulls provided due to dairy production we are still looking at 60%, which as I said I would be comfortable with reducing. There is no reason to eat that much meat, especially for Americans.

Still 80% of american beef is produced on feedlots, eating grain that could go to feed humans. It's not necessary, not is it environmentally sensible.

I don't disagree here. Still fail to see how this justifies clubbing seals.

As as for 'wreck the economy' as an argument - where was that sympathy for the seal clubbers?

Different scale. One impacts the entire global economy, the other impacts a very small part of it.

[Broomstick]

I'm well aware of that (I'm especially fond of stingray leather, myself.) - you're missing my point. If we stop eating beef to placate maddoctor's philosophic scruples, we immediately lose that supply, which would lead to either killing cattle just for their skin, or killing of other animals just for the skin.

Or else leather becomes scarcer and more expensive and more of a luxury than it is now.

Which, in my opinion, is morally worse than killing an animal to eat it and use its skin, as well.

Agreed.

[Lagmonster]

consumption of beef is an unnecessary luxury - there are plenty of other less damaging meats available

Here's a fun question: What do you want farmers to do with all of the currently domesticated livestock? To put it more obviously, what do you think will happen to all these animals that people no longer have any reason to care for?

[madd0ct0r]

tomorrow, tomorrow. i'm out of time today.

[madd0ct0r]

I'll get back to you in a couple of days. Grandfather has just died.

[LaCroix]

Oh. Condolences...

[Thanas]

^ditto.

[madd0ct0r]

Right.

I see you once more skipped the majority of my arguments here...

as for dairy cattle to beef:
Looking at the US market in particular, this seems to be a good summary (albeit from 2002).
in particular;

Market cattle, non-fed beef and dairy animals supply 20 percent of the total beef produced in the United States.

That statistic is including non-fed beef - cows running around in fields.
And typically, for the low grade beef comng off an old milker, we're looking at hamburgers. Young dairy bullocks might get upgraded to a proper cut, but then they might also get upgraded to veal.

Well, considering that we can double that amount due to the number of bulls provided due to dairy production we are still looking at 60%, which as I said I would be comfortable with reducing. There is no reason to eat that much meat, especially for Americans.

Still 80% of american beef is produced on feedlots, eating grain that could go to feed humans. It's not necessary, not is it environmentally sensible.

I don't disagree here. Still fail to see how this justifies clubbing seals.

As as for 'wreck the economy' as an argument - where was that sympathy for the seal clubbers?

Different scale. One impacts the entire global economy, the other impacts a very small part of it.

Firstly, you've got your stat's muddled up: the 20% I quoted ALREADY includes all of byproducts of the dairy industry. I'm really not sure where you got the 60% figure from.
but i did forget to post the source last time, which is a little embarrassing:
http://www.livestocktrail.illinois.edu/ ... tentid=354

Secondly, you use quantity as a reason to keep the beef market rolling, but refuse to consider quantity when I argue the scale of the industry might mean more total cruelty then clubbing seals?
Is this not a little inconsistent?

As for your other arguments, would you mind restating them? I've gone back over the thread and found a few, but nothing I'd really consider to have been ignored.

1) We NEED Meat to be healthy.
refuted by Chanel72. Veganisim is difficult, but possible with supplements. Vegetarinism is not difficult to follow and remain healthy thus meat consumption is not necessary in the general case (in case you bring up pregnant women again. I'd also note one friend's mother was prescribed a pint of Guinness a day instead of meat. My own mother just takes iron supplements.)


2) No alternative source of meat is available in sufficient quantities.
refuted, based on 1). We don't actually need the meat in those quantities. You said that you yourself are in favor of consumption reduction.

3) Hunting wild animals is worse then killing domestics.
not settled, but certainly not ignored. I was the 2nd to last person to comment on it, with the last being a note that hunting includes the slaughter of animals in front of the herd, just like natural predation.

4) Bollocks- it appears I need to go to the bosses house for a celebratory meal for tet, so i do not get the long lunchbreak i thought. will deal with rest tomorrow


5) can someone point out to Lagomonster that even if all beef cattle are slaughtered, this isn't any different to what would happen anyway, except it wouldn't be repeated the next month.
If he assumes the policy implementation is sensible, gradual and up to people's personal 'moral scruples' then you'd just see a gradual reduction of demand and farmers breeding less each cycle.
Also, why should 'moral scruples' regarding clubbing seals be a diktat and not eating steak?
or perhaps the situation is a little more complex then arbitrary 'moral scruples'?

[Akhlut]

I'd also note one friend's mother was prescribed a pint of Guinness a day instead of meat.

What. The. Fuck. Drinking alcohol while pregnant? What the fuck was that doctor smoking to make that prescription?

[K. A. Pital]

refuted by Chanel72. Veganisim is difficult, but possible with supplements

Not all people are coping easy with lack of meat proteins, or indeed, able to do so.

We don't actually need the meat in those quantities.

Capitalistic consumerism cannot itself cut down on the excess consumption of meat. It was long a demonstration of superiority over poor Third Worlders who eat rice and vegetables. A First World society will never lay off the meat. Perhaps the best way to solve the issue would be to create artificial meat without adverse side effects (not sure that's possible).

I was the 2nd to last person to comment on it, with the last being a note that hunting includes the slaughter of animals in front of the herd, just like natural predation.

Hunting is not "natural predation" because humans do it with the use of firearms and advanced technology against helpless animals. As a "natural predator" a human would be soon killed by the animal he's "hunting". Also, hunting is preying upon natural populations which have not been produced or bred by humans, which means humans are taking something which they had no hand in makin and (to preclude the question about oil, etc.) something which is a living being with higher nervous activity. Humans breed most of what they kill, but preying upon natural populations is not a valid idea neither from a practical viewpoint (sustainability), nor from an ethical perspective.

[LaCroix]

Hunting is not "natural predation" because humans do it with the use of firearms and advanced technology against helpless animals. As a "natural predator" a human would be soon killed by the animal he's "hunting". Also, hunting is preying upon natural populations which have not been produced or bred by humans, which means humans are taking something which they had no hand in makin and (to preclude the question about oil, etc.) something which is a living being with higher nervous activity. Humans breed most of what they kill, but preying upon natural populations is not a valid idea neither from a practical viewpoint (sustainability), nor from an ethical perspective.

This might be true in the areas of America, where a natural predation still exists. As natural predation has been almost eliminated in Europe, hunting to keep populations in check is essential. Also, we do have professional hunters, and they are few in numbers and highly regulated. It's very unlike to America where you go hunting in the woods "behind your house" to fill your own fridge - hunters need a special permit that takes lots of time and effort to get, need to claim rights to a hunting ground (or be a guest of the rights owner), and are legally obliged to to care for the grounds and game.

Common saying is a hunter's work is "70% care, 30% harvest"

[madd0ct0r]

@Stasbush - Bish, my mentioning of natural hunting was to go with the point made on the previous page that hunting in the species's territory was extra traumatizing for it.
(as for the econo-political fattyburghers, how strong is the correlation between GDP and protein consumption? actually, if i can get the data from the fao website, i might be able to graph that. It'd be interesting.)

Would you mind going into greater detail re your hunting bad, breeding good decsion? Becuase you seem to have come to the opposite conclusion to me, and I'd love to hear your reasoning.

[K. A. Pital]

Rather strong correlation between GDP/capita and meat consumption exists. Once a nation's GDP icreases, the diet dramatically changes towards meat.

As for the hunting versus breeding, essentially this is a question of taking a life which you had no hand in creating. Bred animals have an unsustainable unnaturally high population, their sole existence is the product of man's desire for meat, fur, whatever. In natural conditions, none of these populations would grow that big. Nature would kill the extra offspring (not that so many would be born in the wild anyway) if they exceed carrying capacity.

As this extra carrying capacity has been completely manmade, humans have a right to the products of that extra carrying capacity. Just like with plants grown versus plants cut down. We usually consider it more prudent to cut down forests in a sustainable fashion, selecting lots which were grown by humans for posterior timber production instead of rapaciously cutting down natural forests, don't we? The same logic applies to animals.

Humans have no bussiness fucking with something they haven't created. You can argue that humans' rights to kill bred animals and cut down man-grown forests should also be limited, anyway. You can also argue that hunting is acceptable for hunter-gatherers society to sustain life - after all, primitive humans would not be able to rely purely on bred/grown products from agriculture, etc. They would have to predate.

However, that does not apply to modern industrial humanity in any fashion. Except maybe for keeping predators in check to avoid eco-disasters as LaCroix specified earlier, humanity has lost its hunting rights as soon as it lost the need to hunt to survive.

[Broomstick]

I'd also note one friend's mother was prescribed a pint of Guinness a day instead of meat.

What. The. Fuck. Drinking alcohol while pregnant? What the fuck was that doctor smoking to make that prescription?

A pint of beer a day is, believe it or not, an old recommendation for pregnant women. A stout such as Guinness is full of B vitamins, among other things. A century or so ago in areas plagued with things like beriberi or without a reliable supply of clean drinking water beer might have been a reasonable choice for a pregnant woman. There's not that much iron in it, but more than plain water.

These days, of course, it is believed that alcohol is a Very Bad Thing during pregnancy (and it certainly can be) and with better diet overall it is no longer necessary for vitamin content or avoidance of dysentery.

[madd0ct0r]

ahh, that'd explain it - this was 25 years ago in Nigeria. cue beri-beri

[Broomstick]

This might be true in the areas of America, where a natural predation still exists. As natural predation has been almost eliminated in Europe, hunting to keep populations in check is essential. Also, we do have professional hunters, and they are few in numbers and highly regulated. It's very unlike to America where you go hunting in the woods "behind your house" to fill your own fridge - hunters need a special permit that takes lots of time and effort to get, need to claim rights to a hunting ground (or be a guest of the rights owner), and are legally obliged to to care for the grounds and game.

Hunting in the US is not quite the free for all you seem to think it is. Outside of someplace like wild Alaska, you do need permits and licenses and hunting is restricted to certain places and times. Failing to comply with the applicable laws and regulations is a criminal offense.

Particularly east of the Mississippi, in urban areas the main predators of deer have been eliminated. This has resulted in a disastrous population explosion. I don't see where having tens of thousand of deer die of starvation every winter is somehow better than a quick bullet or arrow. Excess number of deer also greatly increase the number of deer vs. car/truck accidents, which isn't good for either humans or deer. Regulated hunting replaces the natural predators that are now gone and keeps the deer population healthy and under control. Arguably, that situation is just as unnatural and man-made as domestic cattle on feedlots.

[LaCroix]

Hunting in the US is not quite the free for all you seem to think it is. Outside of someplace like wild Alaska, you do need permits and licenses and hunting is restricted to certain places and times. Failing to comply with the applicable laws and regulations is a criminal offense.

I never said it was free for everyone, I know very well that there are permits needed, but it just is a very different thing to European hunting.

In Europe, each hunting ground is rented out to ONE person (or group), who for the privilege of being allowed to harvest the excess, has to take care of:

Population count and reporting (which will be checked) in order to get a quota.
Feeding, in order to help the wanted population through the winter without having to plunder agricultural land.
Keeping the wildlife healthy and diverse
Take care of poachers (human and pets)

Also, he is liable for damage caused by game if he doesn't do the care part properly. Animals run over by car will be counted into the quota, so in some years, hunters actually aren't allowed to harvest anything, but still have to take care of their entrusted game. You have to inform them so they can fetch the road-kill, but in most cases, it's nothing but garbage.

There are no licenses for people who just want to go out and shoot a deer for the fridge on occasion. If you want to do that, you have to get a full license - which means you are a fully qualified ranger, and takes 60 hours and ends with a federal exam, which has an extremely high rate of failure. Translated table of content
Cost: ~1500$, valid for one to three years.

To actually use it, you need your own ground (minimal size ~200acres), or have to get in contact with someone having a ground and get them to let you shoot one (For which you usually have to pay the market value for, so it's not exactly cheap.)

[Broomstick]

On the other hand, given the average population density of most European countries, and the fact I assume you have less wildlife per capita, that might be entirely reasonable. Certainly, hunting is barred from areas of the US that are urbanized. Most hunters I know have to travel some distance to find legal hunting. I suspect the situation in New England is closer to what prevails in Europe just based on population density alone, even if Europe is still stricter.

I've occasionally considered getting my license and taking small game like rabbit, which is doable around here. My main hesitation is going for deer is the sheer size of the animal - a large buck weighs as much as I do and doing the field dressing, wrestling the rest of the carcass out of the woods, either butchering it myself or finding someone to do it for me... You know, when you factor in ALL the costs it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to go to the butcher. Which is probably why that option is so wildly popular these days.

[LaCroix]

On the other hand, given the average population density of most European countries, and the fact I assume you have less wildlife per capita, that might be entirely reasonable. Certainly, hunting is barred from areas of the US that are urbanized. Most hunters I know have to travel some distance to find legal hunting. I suspect the situation in New England is closer to what prevails in Europe just based on population density alone, even if Europe is still stricter.

I've occasionally considered getting my license and taking small game like rabbit, which is doable around here. My main hesitation is going for deer is the sheer size of the animal - a large buck weighs as much as I do and doing the field dressing, wrestling the rest of the carcass out of the woods, either butchering it myself or finding someone to do it for me... You know, when you factor in ALL the costs it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to go to the butcher. Which is probably why that option is so wildly popular these days.

In Germany, only about 0.4% of the population have a permit. Please take into account that almost all land in Germany (everything that isn't fenced in, which means all agricultural land is fair game) is a hunting ground, and hunting rights are rented out independently from land ownership.

I don't know about how much land in the US is used for hunting reasons, but short search of the web shows that in the most states, the percentage of hunters is between 10 and 20%, barring big cities, which brings the total down to 4% of all americans.

The main difference is the price and the requirements...

NH requires a course (16 hours, the online version is $15.00) which you must pass with 80% or more.
NH daily permit for residents are $22.00 +$2.50 annual habitat fee. (A general hunting, fishing or archery license is not required for minors under 16 years of age. One deer tag included in the license) A lifetime licence is less than 600$!
ANd as far as I can see, there is no price per animal taken to be paid. So the price for a single buck (just to try it) would be $39.50 +ammo plus a few days of studying.

In Germany the permit (60 days of courses, and a hard to pass exam. It usually takes 6-9 months of intensive study to pass this test.) is ~1300€ per year.
A hunting trip to Poland (which are easy to get and much cheaper than in Germany for a casual hunter) is 1599.00 € for 4 ROE deer - 400€ per deer (which weight at 30-60 lbs, about a quarter of a white tail)
(Red deer will be 1000€ and up, depending on antler size. We don't have any kinds of deer in between those sizes.)
Price for a "trial" buck - half a year of studying and 1700+ Euro (~2200$)

[madd0ct0r]

I really was surprised that people considered the vegetarian diet to be impossible.
like really really surprised.
I'm talking ovo-lactarian vegetarain here - eating eggs and milk and grated seal is fine.
(one of those may be a joke)

http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2003_ADA_p ... _paper.pdf

POSITION STATEMENT
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhe ... guide.aspx

For vegetarians who eat milk and eggs, a healthy diet is the same as for anyone else but without meat.

A healthy diet contains plenty of fruit and vegetables and starchy foods, some non-dairy sources of protein such as eggs and beans, some dairy products and just a small amount of fatty and sugary foods.
...

You need to eat a variety of protein from different sources to get the right mixture of amino acids, which are used to build and repair the body’s cells.
...

Contrary to popular belief, most vegetarians have enough protein and calcium (found in dairy products) in their diet.

However, if you don't plan your diet properly, you could miss out on essential nutrients. For example, vegetarians need to make sure they get enough iron and vitamin B12 in their diets.

Eating healthily during pregnancy is important for your own health and the health of your developing baby.

It's important to eat a varied and balanced diet during pregnancy. This will provide enough nutrients for your own health and the development and growth of your baby during pregnancy.

Vegetarian and vegan mums-to-be need to make sure they get enough iron and vitamin B12, which are mainly found in meat and fish. Pregnant and breastfeeding women are also at risk of not getting enough vitamin D.
Iron

Good sources of iron for vegetarians and vegans are:

pulses
dried fruit such as apricots
dark-green vegetables
wholemeal bread
fortified breakfast cereals (with added iron)
eggs (for vegetarians who include them in their diet)

Vitamin B12

Good sources of vitamin B12 for vegetarians are:

milk and cheese
eggs

Good sources for vegetarians and vegans are:

fortified breakfast cereals
fortified soya drinks
yeast extract such as Marmite

As sources for vegans are limited, a vitamin B12 supplement may also be needed.
Vitamin D

Vitamin D is mainly found in meat, fish and eggs, but your body can also make vitamin D when your skin is exposed to summer sunlight.

All pregnant women, regardless of their diet, are advised to take a vitamin D supplement throughout pregnancy to ensure they have enough vitamin D for their baby. Vegans will need to read the label to ensure that the vitamin D used in a product is not of animal origin.
Calcium

If you're a vegan, you also need to make sure you get enough calcium. This is because non-vegans get most of their calcium from dairy foods.

Good sources of calcium for vegans include:

fortified soya, rice and oat drinks
calcium-set tofu
sesame seeds and tahini
pulses
brown and white bread
dried fruit
dark-green leafy vegetables

Talk to your midwife or doctor about how you can get all the nutrients you need for you and your baby.

I had a look at the WHO website, but couldn't find anything specific.
they did have this to say about intensive cattle farming though:
(emphases mine)

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity ... index.html

The rapid increase in the consumption of animal-based foods, many of
which are produced by intensive methods is likely to have a number of
profound consequences. On the health side, increased consumption of
animal products has led to higher intakes of saturated fats, which in
conjunction with tobacco use, threatens to undermine the health gains
made by reducing infectious diseases, in particular in the countries
undergoing rapid economic and nutrition transition. Intensive cattle
production also threatens the world’s ability to feed its poorest people,
who typically have very limited access to even basic foods. Environ-
mental concerns abound too; intensive methods of animal rearing exert
greater environmental pressures than traditional animal husbandry,
largely because of the low efficiency in feed conversion and high water
needs of cattle.
Intensive methods of livestock production may well provide much
needed income opportunities, but this is often at the expense of the
farmers’ capacity to produce their own food. In contrast, the production
of more diverse foods, in particular fruits, vegetables and legumes, may
have a dual benefit in not only improving access to healthy foods but also
in providing an alternative source of income for the farmer. This is
further promoted if farmers can market their products directly to
consumers, and thereby receive a greater proportion of final price. This
model of food production can yield potent health benefits to both
producers and consumers, and simultaneously reduce environmental
pressures on water and land resources.
Agricultural policies in several countries often respond primarily to
short-termcommercial farming concerns rather than be guided by health
and environmental considerations. For example, farmsubsidies for beef
and dairy production had good justification in the past --- they provided
improved access to high quality proteins but today contribute to human
consumption patterns that may aggravate the burden of nutrition
related chronic disease. This apparent disregard for the health
consequences and environmental sustainability of present agricultural
production, limits the potential for change in agricultural policies and
food production, and at some point may lead to a conflict between
meeting population nutrient intake goals and sustaining the demand for
beef associated with the existing patterns of consumption. For example,
if we project the consumption of beef in industrialized countries to the
population of developing countries, the supply of grains for human
consumption may be limited, specially for low-income groups.
Changes in agricultural policies which give producers an opportunity to
adapt to new demands, increase awareness and empower communites to
better address health and environmental consequences of present
consumption patterns will be needed in the future. Integrated strategies
aimed at increasing the responsiveness of governments to health and
environmental concerns of the community will also be required. The
question of how the world’s food supply can bemanaged so as to sustain
the demands made by population-size adjustments in diet is a topic for
continued dialogue by multiple stake-holders that has major con-
sequences for agricultural and environmental policies, as well as for
world food trade

[madd0ct0r]

goddamit - ca someone delte the above? [Done. - D.Turtle]


and from a wall of text, to a new wall of text, with a slight disclaimer.

this time, i'm drunk. another boozy lunchtime. tomorrow will be the same and I'm fed up of making excuses.

OK.

hunting vs farming

Stasbush (that Glamorous Commie!) feels that humans have no right to hunt, but should turn to farming instead. I feel differently, although neither of us is in complete disagreement.

firstly, let's look at definitions, hunting and farming; regarding meat products.

The way I see it, there's a fairly neat spectrum from completely 'pure' hunting of wild populations, via the managed hunting that Broomstick describes, via the managed populations that La Croix describes, to farming deer or crofting sheep, to grazing cattle to feedlot cattle.

I disagree with the end result, but quite where along the spectrum you draw you're own arbitrary line depends on your axioms and reasoning.

For me, the line between hunting and farming comes from property law.

Hunted animals are not property, the right to hunt is attached to that piece of land. This would suggest that where 'hunted' animals never leave a certain, wholly owned territory, they're being farmed. This fits well with things like certain deer parks in the UK and to a certain extent things like pheasants.
On the other hand, animals that move freely from site to site are being hunted. Eg saltwater fish.
(Stasbush -how do you feel about fishing?)

The other reasonably clear dividing line could be the manner of slaughter: hunted animals being killed on the spot and carried out, while farmed animals are carried to their place of slaughter (such as crofted sheep). I'm not using this definition, as certain animals like deer are very hard to transport alive, and it get's confusing with live tank fishing.


For me, the morally dubious point on the spectrum is defined separately: could the situation last without human interference (excepting culling and other killing forms of management since humans have wiped out the predators). With this divisor, low intensity cattle raising (like I experienced in Ireland) could continue without human intervention for quite some time. Intensive feedlots, battery chickens ect couldn't.
For me, the measure of going without humans is akin to a measure of how close to natural is the animal's life. the deer parks would be fine, low intensity cattle farming could continue for a while, the feedlots would starve the beef in a matter of days.

Moving from the general case towards the thread's case, I think we all agree that cattle are farmed and seals are hunted. Seals are unusual in that their apex predators are still around, and the population as a whole would survive very happily without human intervention.

(indeed, excess hunting seems to be headed towards extinction, an environmental argument that is both separate and should be taken in concord with the environmental damage done by intensive cattle rearing)

feedlot cattle aren't. I appreciate I'm restricting my argument from it's earlier breadth, but I'm ok with 'happy' farming. honestly, I am. It's a good way to make use of otherwise difficult land, or otherwise wasted carcasses. I don't think you've ever seen me rant against sheep crofting by way of example.

But feedlot beef - the bloated, unstainable industry that it is does no favours to the cattle, nor to those who buy it's outputs, nor to those it deines basic foods. It is no better then clubbing baby seals in the head.