Is Domestic Animal Flatulence More Harmful Than Wild Animal’s?
January 31, 2008
In this crazy debate these days on global warming - I guess a debate actually involves more than one side - I find myself being subjected to far too numerous counts of double standards and hypocrisy. There is nothing worse than trying to present supporting information for a taken stance while assuming both sides of the same argument. That’s called talking out both sides of your mouth and/or other bodily orifices.
It is sad for America that one side is claiming victory, stating that the science is settled as it pertains to our warming climate. The reason this is not good is because it threatens to end debate. What if people like Einstein had listened to such nonsense? What if Columbus really believed science was conclusive and the earth was flat?
I have been called a few names because of my position on global warming. Most of that comes because those tossing the stones don’t understand the target they are trying to hit. Far too many advocates for “the sky is falling” approach to climate change point fingers at people like me and claim that I am uncaring, greedy, only interested in corporate power and am not concerned about pollution.
I also get a fair amount of chastising because much of what I do is to promote hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors. Are we to assume that because I am an advocate for such that I must be a member of the global warming gang (GWG)? Hardly!
My concerns go far deeper than whether or not warming waters will put brook trout at risk or if changing habitat forces the Canada lynx out of Maine and back into Canada. With the alarmists’ approach to climate change, we see more and more demand to declare habitat critical or list species as endangered, even when there’s no real science to back it up. The method serves only to prohibit people from going fishing, hunting or trapping or worse yet, the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness to own a piece of land - the American dream.
I’m not driven by greed nor is my focus only on my pocketbook. When climate change advocates insist on ceasing the debate on the subject and refusing to listen to the other half of the science world, this is wrong and it’s dangerous. When their proposals infringe on my rights as a free American, I will speak up.
Yesterday I was reading an article written by Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. The article was published by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Borelli believes much as I do, that if we continue to shut down dialog on global warming and continue with the approach we are using, this is threatening our liberties. She also puts aside claims by the GWG that critics don’t care.
Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don’t care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.
Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.
After all, the loss of liberty is a greater cause of alarm than global warming.
If I am going to be deprived of my personal choice to go hunting and fishing, or plant a crop on my land or cut down a tree to pay my taxes because a group of people believe the sky is falling, I’ll take issue with it every time. Contrary to what some believe, our group of hunters and fishermen are real conservationists. We understood long before anyone else the importance of proper management of wildlife and game animals. What we do is not perfect but it’s a far cry from the hypocritical efforts being exemplified by some groups.
Let’s take PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as an example. Borelli alludes to this group and others in making her case that in an effort to be in style people are forging ahead willy-nilly to be “green” without first considering the entire scope of their decisions.
In some cases these groups have other agendas and really care very little about the climate and are using global warming as a way to raise money and further their cause. PETA is one such entity. They advocate for a vegetarian diet because they don’t want you and I to exploit or kill animals to eat. Fair enough…….or is it?
They also lay claim that farm-raised animals are destroying our atmosphere and are contributing to global warming.
America’s meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country’s meat addiction is wrecking the earth.
Do you know how ridiculous this statement is? First of all, why pick on domestic animals, which by the way is necessary for survival. I’m not a vegetarian, never have been a vegetarian and have no plans to ever be one and I’m not alone. We hear everyday that groups like PETA want to rid the world of farm animals because they emit natural gases through flatulence.
Maybe PETA doesn’t realize that all animals fart, even wild ones. They defecate too! Are there not substantial enough populations of wild animals that fart worldwide that we should be concerned with that? On the one hand you have PETA saying that we need to eliminate farming because the animals are destroying the earth, while at the same time, making every effort to make sure that all animals are left alone to multiply and grow as “Mother Nature” would allow. Is this having it both ways? Or is this part of the “emotion and alarmism” that Borelli speaks of in her column?
It’s not just PETA. It’s everywhere. Suppose for a moment that just the United States banned meat eating. The first thing we’d have to do is dispose of all the dead animal bodies and parts and make sure they were kept from multiplying again. We now have to replace all that meat and protein with something. What?
When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters’ minds is, “What do you eat?” The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and “Fib Ribs” to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more.
And where do these alternatives come from? Much of this stuff is manufactured. What kind of a carbon footprint does that leave? If we have to grow plants to replace the meat, where’s that going to happen? Outer space? Who knows how many more acres of land it will take to grow enough vegetables, soy, etc. to replace the meat. Those crops have to be planted, cultivated, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped. And this is saving our planet? We might as well kill all the animals. They are of no use to PETA. Oh, wait! They are supposed to be advocating for animals.
This is the foolishness that needs to be discussed. It’s only one more element of the total debate on global warming that advocates don’t seem to want to talk about anymore. I wonder why that is? Are they afraid you might learn facts and can decide what you want to do about saving the planet based on science and data?
Science never “settles” for anything. If it did, we would cease to exist. We should be prompting science to continue its studies of our climate and stop plunging dangerously headlong into something that is going to cost us dearly in more ways than one.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] Read the whole thing here. Jan 31, 2008 | | Uncategorized [...]
[...] Tom Remington wrote an interesting post today on Is Domestic Animal Flatulence More Harmful Than Wild Animal’s?Here’s a quick excerptFar too many advocates for “the sky is falling†approach to climate change point fingers at people like me and claim that I am uncaring, greedy, only interested in corporate power and am not concerned about pollution. … [...]
Tom,
I’m a hunter also. I don’t eat much meat from domestic animals. Most of the meat I eat comes from wild game - especially the good years! I don’t think your helping our cause much because the tone of your critism does as much to shut down debate as the extreme you are pointing out. If you read the science on raising cattle and its contribution to greenhouse gases, it is uncomplicated and clear. There is a significant impact cattle make on our environment that includes the amount of water required to raise meat. We don’t ‘need’ domestic meat production for survival but its nice to have a beef steak on occasion. Like anything, balance is the key. I wouldn’t lop scientists in with PETA and don’t let PETA represent those of us concerned for the environment. We hunters were not first on the game management wagon. Hunters historically were not exemplary game managers. Aldo Leopold was one of the first conservation officers that saw the interconnection of species - the interdependence of an ecosystem to all individual components. Also, the world was flat to the Christian Church as was planets and sun orbiting earth. When actual scientists said something different, they were persecuted by Christians. My point is there is balance that falls between PETA and the level of defensiveness you exhibit. If the PETA end of the continuum wants to present themselves like they do, go ahead. I would hope hunters would acknowledge what science has learned, listen to what others have suggested and try to find common ground. We would look all the better.
Scott
Lot to comment on potentially in this post, Tom!
I can’t agree comepletely about the global warming debate, but I can agree that PETA takes an extreme stance to things. There’s so much wrong with what they say. Animals consume too much of our food supply? It’s a supply that is raised to support them. It’s not as if they are the cause of deforestation or take food from babes mouths–quite the contrary.
To say across the board domestic animals and farming are evil is quite a statement. Large corporate farms may cause more of a problem because animals are concentrated in one area. COmpae them to smaller farm alternatives and perhaps you get a different result. As for poison farm air, as a born and bred dairy farm girl, I guess I’m doomed, eh?
Something people might want to consider is that this is another reason to support your small local farms. Waste products are not as concentrated and so are les pollutant to ground & water, are more easily controlled (and believe me the government controls the small farmer plenty!), and resource use (like water) is more widely dispersed.
@Scott–I disagree farms are not necessary as a food source. Would you like to share your woods with the entire population of Boston at once so that everyone can find enough meat to eat? As for the impact of cattle, as Tom says, wild herds have as much of a potential to cause that kind of ‘harm’, it’s more that they are harder to study and less a target.
I support a person’s right to be a vegetarian or vegan as they please, but let’s remember that humans are CARNIVORES. The answer is in management, not banning. Tom, kudos to you i.e. the processing of these ‘healthy’ processed vegan alternatives!
Gotta go…my big fat juicy steak is ready!
I’m not opposed to a vegan diet either. I’m not opposed to people advocating to reduce the large meat factories, or whatever you want to call them. I’m not opposed to working to discover whether or not man or nature is causing this moment in time in our tiny moment in history’s climate changes.
What I am opposed to is imposing values on people and stripping me and my neighbors of their right to liberty because they think carbon dioxide is the problem when we don’t know that.
Why just pick on animals? Have you ever gone into a rest room at a big truck stop? Phew! There are about 7 billion of us all doing the same thing. That can’t be helping the problem.
Ed Koenig
You’ve got a point there, Ed. Probably would be far more effective to reduce the human population–in more ways than one!
I have always said the if we eliminated the overabundance of flatulence coming out of Washington, it would probably reverse the global warming and we would be facing global cooling!
(For those who don’t get this, it’s a joke!)
Before the great push west after our Civil war there were so many bison in the great plains that it took several days for a heard to pass. There were millions of bison. Well bison are a member of the bovine family of animals. They must have passes huge amounts of gas which souuld have created Global Warming. Yet this didn’t become a problem until al gore saw that he could use Global Warming as a way to get richer and attain power.
Tom-
Your article is absolutely, dead-nuts, right on target! Fire for effect!
Awww, darn. You’re just joking, Tom? I thought it sounded like a great plan….
Mary - You know there are those who would think I was serious about “eliminating”. Of course I am serious about the amount of gas coming out of Washington.
Jim - Thanks for the support. I know the article was a bit of a rant but I am interested in trying to keep some kind of dialog here because I don’t believe the science is conclusive and settled.
Doug - Thanks for that reminder and history lesson. I thought it funny that even though I found a photo of the vast sea of caribou, I’m not sure it was here or somewhere else, that a reader commented that the problems from domestic animals is only because they are congregated together in large numbers.
“I’m not sure it was here or somewhere else, that a reader commented that the problems from domestic animals is only because they are congregated together in large numbers”
I think you might be referring to me, but that’s not exactly what I meant. I come at this from the background of a girl raised on a small New England dairy farm, so probably thought I was clearer than I was.
To be more accurate, it’s not that the numbers are large & concentrated as much as it is that they are large and stationary. Wild herds, as you know, are not stationary. Their impact on food and environmental resources is dispersed.
To be more specific, and this isn’t as relative to flatulence as general waste, excrement is concentrated in one area where it can then come to overwhelm land & water supplies. That’s why I maintain that these large corporate farms with thousands of animals in what amounts to a huge paddock are more harmful.
At any rate, I was arguing against the PETA stance in that reference.
Not sure if you’re aware or if it was mentioned here, but the Federal government spent many tax dollars years back (like in the nineties if memeory serves) to study cow farts. Great way to spend our tax dollars, eh? If that’s the best we can come up with, guess we’d better give it up now.
Back in the mid-90s I was involved with a very small group of people putting focus on trying to find ways to clean up the Androscoggin River (a lot of paper mills etc.) We worked with the Maine DEP in a way that, in its time, was unique. The DEP let us work with the local businesses etc. - the emphasis on WITH. Education and awareness went a long way to effect change. This also involved enlightening all residents as to how anything and everything they do can affect water.
It worked quite well. Part of what we did was begin a water monitoring program, where myself and other volunteers would collect water samples along the river over a sustained period of time. The reason we did this was because nothing we could do or say would convince the locals that the river was 1) cleaner than they thought it was and 2) wasn’t so greatly affected by industry runoff etc.
I’m getting off task, sorry! As I was saying this effort of oozing the drops of honey, talking with individuals and small groups, without strong arm tactics, educating and enlightening worked wonders. It got some locals asking how they could help etc.
Then it got nasty. While some viewed what we had done as a good thing, the old American, some is good more is better, took over and suddenly, this group grew to include those who wanted to shut down all the farms along the river valley because of the spreading of cow manure and fertilizers.
That’s when I bailed out of that effort. We are talking about private property, the livelihoods of families and our food supplies and there’s no way will I ever work to force anyone out of the businesses.
There are other ways of dealing with such that doesn’t involve the tactics some are suggesting in dealing with issues of climate change.
Tom, this is a great article! I’m rolling on the floor in fits of laughter! It’s the old, did the Dinosaurs do do to much and methane the atmosphere into massive global warming? Or was it the big rock from the heavens crashing into earth raising clouds of dust blocking out the sun and cooling the globe?
Hot then Cold or Cold then Hot again? The mind boggles,I guess it depends which you subscribe to. Me? I’m with you It’s gotta be the hot air from Washington that will get us all if we don’t keep a close eye on them.
[...] Is Domestic Animal Flatulence More Harmful Than Wild Animal’s? [...]
[...] on global warming - I guess a debate actually involves more than one side - I find myself being suhttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/01/31/is-domestic-animal-flatulence-more-harmful-than-wild-ani…Be the Perfect You that you can be!If you are ever late for an appointment, get some of your [...]
How about a new game show called ‘Battle Bea?’
Contestants would pick any obscure bad thing that happened anywhere in the world, and Bea would have 10 seconds to explain why it is President Bush’s fault,
I think I have the answer to the problem and it would help the economy. Hire people to run around with lighters at the farms and ranches and when a cow or horse looks like their ready to blow hit the lighter and burn the gas before it has a chance to get into the atmosphere. Al Gore should probably be the one to train the new hires since it is his project and he’ll fit in nicely with the rest of that end of the animals. We should probably start thinning out some of the Mexican restaurants also, maybe down to 1 per city, gonna miss that though, love them burritos but, I’m willing to do my part
It snowed in London last month (October 08) during the Global Warming summit they had there, first snow in London since 1922. How cool is that.
the left never debates–they only insult. (It’s quicker, pithier and doesn’t tax the mind.)”
[...] Dog, Human Emissions NZ Farmers Gas About Sheep Flatulence Pollution Law - World news | Newser Is Domestic Animal Flatulence More Harmful Than Wild Animal?s? : Black Bear Blog ? Now for the Real Cause of Global Warming? Whale Flatulence Dvorak Uncensored: General interest [...]