The word sport is synonymous with competition and rivalry, not a killing from ambush or stalking innocent animals. In this context, the word hunting before it can be identified with the massacre, and the act of hunting barbaric and cruel ways of 'entertainment'.
Species such as bears, wolves and white-headed vulture is brought to the very brink of extinction only by 'merit' hunters. Overfishing of the animals are exterminated rather than be protected, and many farm animals for hunters only serve as a preparation for the killing. In other words, the animals are raised in farms that were later released into the country and killed.
In the West, the growing phenomenon of eco-tourism, or 'hunting' on animal with cameras, not guns. The eco-tourism is a large potential - new jobs, a large inflow of foreign and domestic tourists, and exploring nature. Environment and approaching animals that no longer hanging from the walls as trophies but to live their lives are true and not fake. For this reason, the AFC welcome and advocate for promoting eco-tourism instead of the barbaric and inhumane hunting of innocent animals.
ABOUT VEGETARIAN TIMES
The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.
—Charles Darwin, English naturalist (1809–1882)
Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself.
—James A. Froude, English historian (1818–1894)
If you visit the killing floor of a slaughterhouse, it will brand your soul for life.
—Howard Lyman, author of Mad Cowboy
A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.
—Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828–1910)
Hunting is a massacre, not a sport
ponedjeljak, 4. listopada 2010.Objavio/la George Harford u 09:12 0 komentari
Oznake: animal cruelty, animal farming, eco-tourism, killing animals, vegetarians, white-headed vulture
Meat has a disastrous impact on climate
nedjelja, 19. rujna 2010.
Meat production is the culprit for the emission of greenhouse gases by 18 percent
Meat is considered as a status symbol and a sign of prosperity. Who can afford, daily sets it on the table. However, the best source of protein has a disastrous impact for the environment. Cars, factories and aircraft are not the only culprits for global warming - one of the perpetrators are in fact almost daily on our plate: meat! On the international 'Green Week' which was held in Berlin from 16 to 25 January to meet producers from all over the world to present their agricultural products. Marianne Thieme from the 'Party for Animals' in The Hague in his film to emphasize the detrimental role of meat. She made a film called 'Meat the Truth', which was conceived as a sequel to 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Al Gore. 'Intensive breeding of livestock leads to much greater production of greenhouse gases than all the planes and cars together. Vegetarian who drives a luxury car is less environmentally friendly than someone who eats meat and drives a Toyota Prius, says Marianne Thieme. It is in fact rely on the numbers and the Organization for Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
Cow as a car
The entire transport sector - airplanes, cars, trains - according to FAO produces 14 percent of emissions that affect the creation of the greenhouse effect. Production of meat on the other side 'to blame' for as much as 18 percent of emissions. This one comes in second place, immediately after the coal fired power station. The reason is that due to production of meat they cut large forested areas, primarily in Brazil. Production of one kilogram of beef results in Brazil with nearly 60 pounds of carbon dioxide. But there is another factor, Thieme says, 'Excuse me being so direct, but with every release of gas or belching out methane from cows, and this is another harmful gas. " Transform the methane into carbon dioxide, then every cow in the year through their digestion produces CO2, which corresponds to the amount by half past four cars of the middle class. For Marianne Thieme is a logical answer: we must eat less meat. The Netherlands Minister of Agriculture Gerda Verburg wont even to hear. In her opinion, Thieme exaggeration, because the difference would not be found even if they stopped eating meat. Production of substitutes for meat and cheese also lead to the creation o f greenhouse gases, said Verburg. However, Thieme believes: 'Of course that does not mean that the meat is replaced by a different animal proteins. We generally eat less animal protein. "
Fasting for nature
'If in a week we throw a meat for one day, our government would be without much hesitation, to exercise their environmental objectives. " Party for Animals is the first such political party in the world that entered the national parliament. During the last parliamentary elections 2006th Party of the 150 seats in parliament won two. In the meantime, the party is represented with a place in the Senate. However, it is still 'small', so for her the other parties in parliament do not see a great future. The film 'Meat the truth' is currently on a world tour in America. In many other countries in the world have also established the Party for Animals, for example in Austria, Britain, Italy and Brazil.
Facts
Cloned
Apart from problems with the environment, a great deal of discussion takes about cloned animals. Meat of these animals can be risky for the health of consumers - so he decided the European Office for Food Safety.
Carefree U.S.
Americans are convinced that no cloned meat or milk from cloned cows is not a risk to human health. U.S. Office for the control of food allowed the sale in early 2008. year.
Objavio/la George Harford u 08:50 0 komentari
Oznake: animal farming, animal welfare, avoiding meat, cloned meat, environmental impacts, greenhouse gases, Meat the truth, vegetarianism
Is the vegan world possible?
srijeda, 8. rujna 2010.Many people agree that the animal farming is cruel and unethical exploitation of animals, but believe that their efforts will never
make any noticeable difference, but consider the development of the situation:
Imagine that one of us make the impact of only one person to move to the vegan lifestyle on average every five years and that person also affect one new person every five years. Although the change was imperceptible at first, until the middle of the century a large percentage of the human population would become a vegan and a lot of suffering would be prevented. As more people stop eating animals, it will be more vegan offer for everyone, so others will much easier change their habits. whit that pace should be only a few decades to move all people to the vegan lifestyle.
So we change our way of life, but we must also affect others to stop human exploitation and killing of animals and make this world better for all its residents as soon as we became vegan. and thus better .
Objavio/la George Harford u 11:23 0 komentari
Oznake: animal cruelty, animal farming, killing animals, vegan, vegan lifestyle, veganism