|
Home > Archive > UK gardening > July 2005 > Re: Question about dairy calves.
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Question about dairy calves.
|
|
|
|
| Mary Fisher 2005-07-26, 5:21 pm |
|
"John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:3mtce15rff2rd4lc19b7ee5ue94o5ilpa1@4ax.com...
....
>
> Sadly the animals are mostly killed and given away to hunts for their
> dogs or other pet foods. This is in line with most atrocious farm
> practice not just in the UK but globally. Best way to rid the world
> of the scum that profit from suffering animals is to go vegan.
And what happens to the animals then?
Mary
>
| |
| Paul Rooney 2005-07-26, 6:21 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:33:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3mtce15rff2rd4lc19b7ee5ue94o5ilpa1@4ax.com...
>
>...
>
>And what happens to the animals then?
>
>Mary
>
Mary - you really don't want to be here in demon.local! It's a
cesspit! But at least it's home (-:
But you are quite right. These Vegan bastards merrily slaughter
vegetables indiscriminately, and have no idea why their pernicious
habits would result in the complete loss of farm animals.
I say, boil them all up into a soup and feed them to the third world!
Damn tree-huggers and cyclists, the lot of them!
--
"Those who indulge in chest-beating about how they always win seem to overlook the fact that the so-called
sig-abusers always win, too. Usenet is like that. If such meaningless labels are to be pressed into service,
then I would say that Paul has won. Not only by his undoubted stamina, but by the sustained grace, charm,
and mischievous wit of his responses." James Follett, novelist (writing in the newsgroup demon.local).
Paul Rooney (Founder Member, All New demon.local)
| |
| Golightly 2005-07-26, 6:21 pm |
|
"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message =
news:42e68fe5$0$32464$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
>=20
> "John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message=20
> news:3mtce15rff2rd4lc19b7ee5ue94o5ilpa1@4ax.com...
>=20
> ...
their[color=darkred]
>=20
> And what happens to the animals then?
>=20
> Mary
That's a 'very' good question. The answer is mass extinction of most =
domestic breeds with, maybe, a few surviving on 'City Farms' for =
schoolkids to look at as they munch their spinach butties (Oops. There =
wouldn't be any butter for the butties, would there?). =20
For example, there are only two 'crops' you can grow on mountains - =
sheep and conifers - remove the sheep and we can look forward to =
pine-clad Brecon Beacons, Grampians, etc.=20
My dream! To be an observer on the day that a veggie tells a Masai =
warrior that he can no longer keep cattle.
| |
|
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:33:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3mtce15rff2rd4lc19b7ee5ue94o5ilpa1@4ax.com...
>
>...
>
>And what happens to the animals then?
They are no longer bred to be abused.
| |
| Paul Rooney 2005-07-26, 6:21 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:53 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:33:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
><mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>They are no longer bred to be abused.
To be eaten is the finest thing an animal can do. What other point do
their miserable lives have? Left alone they would be a sickly bunch,
dying a miserable death. They deserve better - mint sauce comes to
mind.
--
"Those who indulge in chest-beating about how they always win seem to overlook the fact that the so-called
sig-abusers always win, too. Usenet is like that. If such meaningless labels are to be pressed into service,
then I would say that Paul has won. Not only by his undoubted stamina, but by the sustained grace, charm,
and mischievous wit of his responses." James Follett, novelist (writing in the newsgroup demon.local).
Paul Rooney (Founder Member, All New demon.local)
| |
|
|
"Golightly" <golly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc66kd$35g$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42e68fe5$0$32464$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> "John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3mtce15rff2rd4lc19b7ee5ue94o5ilpa1@4ax.com...
>
> ...
>
> And what happens to the animals then?
>
> Mary
That's a 'very' good question. The answer is mass extinction of most
domestic breeds with, maybe, a few surviving on 'City Farms' for schoolkids
to look at as they munch their spinach butties (Oops. There wouldn't be any
butter for the butties, would there?).
For example, there are only two 'crops' you can grow on mountains - sheep
and conifers - remove the sheep and we can look forward to pine-clad Brecon
Beacons, Grampians, etc.
Don't forget deer, rabbits, hares and small rodents which are quite capable
of exploiting grazing vacated by sheep, and which can keep tree growth down
nicely :-)
| |
| Peter James 2005-07-27, 7:21 am |
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:43:23 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
wrote:
>snipped
>To be eaten is the finest thing an animal can do. What other point do
>their miserable lives have? Left alone they would be a sickly bunch,
>dying a miserable death. They deserve better - mint sauce comes to
>mind.
Consider the words of one William Ralph Inge 1860 - 1954
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resoulutions in favour of
vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Or if you prefer, try the words of James Joyce 1882 - 1941
"Mr Leopold Blloom ate with relish the inner organs of beasts and
fowls. He liked thick giblet soup, nutty gizzards, a stuffed roast
heart, liver slices fried with crustcrumbs, fired hencod's roes. Most
of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave his palate a fine
tang of faintly scented urine."
Ulysses (1922) p.53
-
Peter James
Remove AT to reply
| |
|
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:53 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>They are no longer bred to be abused.
Which is an argument for setting standards in animal welfare, buying
organic, free range, wild and game meats but it seems rather an
extreme choice to offer abuse or extinction as the only options.
Unfortunately we live in a world where most people will buy their meat
on price and have been so removed from nature that it wouldn't even
occur to them that, although it's more expensive and it might mean
eating less meat, the free range options could be better value.
JB
| |
| Golightly 2005-07-27, 7:21 am |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message =
news:1122449836.10321.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
> For example, there are only two 'crops' you can grow on mountains - =
sheep
> and conifers - remove the sheep and we can look forward to pine-clad =
Brecon
> Beacons, Grampians, etc.
>=20
> Don't forget deer, rabbits, hares and small rodents which are quite =
capable
> of exploiting grazing vacated by sheep, and which can keep tree growth =
down
> nicely :-)
It would be a very benevolent landowner who left land to go back to =
nature. No, I think you'd soon see huge ploughs furrowing the =
mountainsides, followed quickly by serried rows of young conifers being =
planted. There are already plenty of examples of this being done. Deer =
wouldn't get a look in as the plantations would be fenced. And conifer =
plantations are very wildlife unfriendly, there is little in them to =
sustain rabbits or small rodents. Just take a walk through one, they =
are gloomy, sterile places where the sun never reaches and the only =
sound is the steady rustle of pine needles falling - carpeting the =
ground and preventing even the most hardy grass from growing.
| |
|
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:05:51 +0100, JB <this.is.me@somewhere.else>
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:53 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Which is an argument for setting standards in animal welfare, buying
>organic, free range, wild and game meats but it seems rather an
>extreme choice to offer abuse or extinction as the only options.
Not if your vegan. The farm animals will be no more extinct than dogs,
cats or any other companion animal that doesn't get abused.
>
>Unfortunately we live in a world where most people will buy their meat
>on price and have been so removed from nature that it wouldn't even
>occur to them that, although it's more expensive and it might mean
>eating less meat, the free range options could be better value.
Which is why we need educating about the reality of a meat diet and
intensive farming. What we do with that information is up to each of
us. No sense shooting the messenger just because some people don't
like the message.
| |
|
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:43:23 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:53 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>To be eaten is the finest thing an animal can do.
If you're going to pretend to be someone else then try and at least be
as imaginative as the original. Loser.
| |
|
| On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:26:05 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:33:41 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
><mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Mary - you really don't want to be here in demon.local! It's a
>cesspit! But at least it's home (-:
Doesn't membership require a baseline intelligence that you don't
appear to possess, despite pretending to be the founder and maestro of
the new DL?
Or are they just letting anybody in these days.
Whatever Paul did to upset you I double it.
| |
| Mary Fisher 2005-07-27, 8:21 am |
|
"JB" <this.is.me@somewhere.else> wrote in message
news:irmee1l3dfmda9h0brhim4vnsje6qs3ls8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:32:53 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which is an argument for setting standards in animal welfare, buying
> organic, free range, wild and game meats but it seems rather an
> extreme choice to offer abuse or extinction as the only options.
I agree 100%
>
> Unfortunately we live in a world where most people will buy their meat
> on price and have been so removed from nature that it wouldn't even
> occur to them that, although it's more expensive and it might mean
> eating less meat, the free range options could be better value.
Hurrah!
Mary
>
> JB
>
| |
|
|
"Golightly" <golly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc7m2k$id2$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1122449836.10321.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
For clarity (something seems to be wrong with the attribution marks) I did
not write the following paragraph
> For example, there are only two 'crops' you can grow on mountains - sheep
> and conifers - remove the sheep and we can look forward to pine-clad
Brecon
> Beacons, Grampians, etc.
>
But I did write the next one
> Don't forget deer, rabbits, hares and small rodents which are quite
capable
> of exploiting grazing vacated by sheep, and which can keep tree growth
down
> nicely :-)
Next paragraph not mine.
It would be a very benevolent landowner who left land to go back to nature.
No, I think you'd soon see huge ploughs furrowing the mountainsides,
followed quickly by serried rows of young conifers being planted. There are
already plenty of examples of this being done.
Next paragraph mine
Are there, I was under the impression new conifer planting wasn't so
commercially attractive that there was much demand for land for it,
nowadays?
Next not mine
Deer wouldn't get a look in as the plantations would be fenced.
Next mine
Would they, who would pay for that, then, and would the conservationists
allow it? Deer fences are very passe now, people have even been paid to
remove it.
next not mine
And conifer plantations are very wildlife unfriendly, there is little in
them to sustain rabbits or small rodents. Just take a walk through one,
they are gloomy, sterile places where the sun never reaches and the only
sound is the steady rustle of pine needles falling - carpeting the ground
and preventing even the most hardy grass from growing.
Next mine
Once well established, plantations are rabbit and vole proof, true. However,
not if the saplings are nipped in the bud, so to speak.
| |
| SpamMe 2005-07-27, 11:21 am |
| John wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:26:05 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Doesn't membership require a baseline intelligence that you don't
> appear to possess, despite pretending to be the founder and maestro of
> the new DL?
>
> Or are they just letting anybody in these days.
>
> Whatever Paul did to upset you I double it.
>
>
Anyone's allowed - it's not a moderated group.
| |
| martin 2005-07-27, 11:21 am |
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:18:20 +0100, SpamMe
<john_sargent@spanners4us.com> wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>Anyone's allowed - it's not a moderated group.
demon.local,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,scot.birds,uk.rec.gardening,uk.business.agriculture,uk.rec.fishing.coarse,sci.agriculture.poultry
--
Martin
| |
| SpamMe 2005-07-27, 11:21 am |
| John wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:43:23 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If you're going to pretend to be someone else then try and at least be
> as imaginative as the original. Loser.
In what way is he pretending to be someone else?
| |
| Golightly 2005-07-27, 1:21 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message =
news:1122463846.74631.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>=20
> "Golightly" <golly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dc7m2k$id2$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>=20
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1122449836.10321.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>=20
> For clarity (something seems to be wrong with the attribution marks) I =
did
> not write the following paragraph
>=20
sheep[color=darkred]
> Brecon
>=20
> But I did write the next one
>=20
> capable
growth[color=darkred]
> down
>=20
> Next paragraph not mine.
>=20
> It would be a very benevolent landowner who left land to go back to =
nature.
> No, I think you'd soon see huge ploughs furrowing the mountainsides,
> followed quickly by serried rows of young conifers being planted. =
There are
> already plenty of examples of this being done.
>=20
> Next paragraph mine
>=20
> Are there, I was under the impression new conifer planting wasn't so
> commercially attractive that there was much demand for land for it,
> nowadays?
>=20
> Next not mine
>=20
> Deer wouldn't get a look in as the plantations would be fenced.
>=20
> Next mine
>=20
> Would they, who would pay for that, then, and would the =
conservationists
> allow it? Deer fences are very passe now, people have even been paid =
to
> remove it.
>=20
> next not mine
>=20
> And conifer plantations are very wildlife unfriendly, there is little =
in
> them to sustain rabbits or small rodents. Just take a walk through =
one,
> they are gloomy, sterile places where the sun never reaches and the =
only
> sound is the steady rustle of pine needles falling - carpeting the =
ground
> and preventing even the most hardy grass from growing.
>=20
> Next mine
>=20
> Once well established, plantations are rabbit and vole proof, true. =
However,
> not if the saplings are nipped in the bud, so to speak.
>=20
You seem to have completely missed the point. Landowners own land in =
order to use it. They want to make money from it. If you own a =
mountain you can only make money from it by growing stuff. If you can't =
grow sheep you'll grow trees. Mature trees are worth money. Small =
trees aren't worth money. Therefore, if necessary, you will fence the =
small trees to stop deer eating them. And you won't ruin your crop of =
trees by 'nipping them in the bud' just for the benefit of rabbits. =
Ultimately you'll have mountains covered with maturing pine trees and =
'no' wildlife. Conservationists won't have any say in the matter except =
perhaps for certain areas of 'natural beauty'. In another thread (mice =
& albatrosses) you advocate care and forethought before embarking on a =
course of action which may have unforseen, and unfortunate consequences. =
Yet those who would instantly make us all vegan and deny humans the use =
of animals are advocating exactly that sort of unthinking headlong =
action. Fortunately that day will never come because to enforce such a =
totalitarian ideology would turn us into something against which =
Stalinist Russia would seem like Utopia. People wouldn't stand for it.
| |
|
|
"Golightly" <golly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc89j3$o3q$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1122463846.74631.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
>
> "Golightly" <golly@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dc7m2k$id2$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1122449836.10321.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> For clarity (something seems to be wrong with the attribution marks) I did
> not write the following paragraph
>
sheep[color=darkred]
> Brecon
>
> But I did write the next one
>
> capable
> down
>
> Next paragraph not mine.
>
> It would be a very benevolent landowner who left land to go back to
nature.
> No, I think you'd soon see huge ploughs furrowing the mountainsides,
> followed quickly by serried rows of young conifers being planted. There
are
> already plenty of examples of this being done.
>
> Next paragraph mine
>
> Are there, I was under the impression new conifer planting wasn't so
> commercially attractive that there was much demand for land for it,
> nowadays?
>
> Next not mine
>
> Deer wouldn't get a look in as the plantations would be fenced.
>
> Next mine
>
> Would they, who would pay for that, then, and would the conservationists
> allow it? Deer fences are very passe now, people have even been paid to
> remove it.
>
> next not mine
>
> And conifer plantations are very wildlife unfriendly, there is little in
> them to sustain rabbits or small rodents. Just take a walk through one,
> they are gloomy, sterile places where the sun never reaches and the only
> sound is the steady rustle of pine needles falling - carpeting the ground
> and preventing even the most hardy grass from growing.
>
> Next mine
>
> Once well established, plantations are rabbit and vole proof, true.
However,
> not if the saplings are nipped in the bud, so to speak.
>
You seem to have completely missed the point. Landowners own land in order
to use it. They want to make money from it. If you own a mountain you can
only make money from it by growing stuff. If you can't grow sheep you'll
grow trees. Mature trees are worth money. Small trees aren't worth money.
Therefore, if necessary, you will fence the small trees to stop deer eating
them. And you won't ruin your crop of trees by 'nipping them in the bud'
just for the benefit of rabbits. Ultimately you'll have mountains covered
with maturing pine trees and 'no' wildlife. Conservationists won't have any
say in the matter except perhaps for certain areas of 'natural beauty'. In
another thread (mice & albatrosses) you advocate care and forethought before
embarking on a course of action which may have unforseen, and unfortunate
consequences. Yet those who would instantly make us all vegan and deny
humans the use of animals are advocating exactly that sort of unthinking
headlong action. Fortunately that day will never come because to enforce
such a totalitarian ideology would turn us into something against which
Stalinist Russia would seem like Utopia. People wouldn't stand for it.
I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in order to
use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a financial
gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they are
confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland conifer
planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell Ingram
study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants, Douglas
fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82 % -
hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
values have dropped so much over the past few decades.
OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income (which
includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer fences)
and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner might be
better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the consequence
the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own devices,
as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.
I entirely agree, however, that it would be a sad day for us all if a
totalitarian regime were to impose veganism on us.
| |
|
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:18:20 +0100, SpamMe
<john_sargent@spanners4us.com> wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>Anyone's allowed - it's not a moderated group.
Too right.
| |
| Golightly 2005-07-27, 3:21 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message =
news:1122481783.42004.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>=20
> I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in =
order to
> use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a =
financial
> gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they =
are
> confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland =
conifer
> planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell =
Ingram
> study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants, =
Douglas
> fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82 =
% -
> hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
> values have dropped so much over the past few decades.
>=20
> OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income =
(which
> includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer =
fences)
> and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
I mentioned the 'use' of mountain land as only one example of what would =
(might) happen if we were not allowed to 'grow' animals, i.e. if the =
veggies ever got their way. In that case your deer stalking option =
above would not exist. =20
> Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner =
might be
> better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the =
consequence
> the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own =
devices,
> as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.
There is one other valuable 'crop' that mountains produce and that is =
wind. The day may come when when all high ground is a forest of =
turbines.
=20
> I entirely agree, however, that it would be a sad day for us all if a
> totalitarian regime were to impose veganism on us.
I'm glad we agree on this. A quick read of some veggie/animal rights =
(there is little to differ between them) websites will show that they do =
indeed want a world where no use is made of animals. This doesn't just =
mean animals for food but animals for leather, wool, work, pets or =
anything else - even guide dogs for the blind have been seen as =
unacceptable 'animal exploitation'.
| |
| Paul Rooney 2005-07-27, 3:21 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:48:25 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:26:05 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Doesn't membership require a baseline intelligence that you don't
>appear to possess, despite pretending to be the founder and maestro of
>the new DL?
>
>Or are they just letting anybody in these days.
It's all in the FAQ. If you don't read it you won't know, will you?
>
>Whatever Paul did to upset you I double it.
>
>
Twice 0 is 0.
--
"Those who indulge in chest-beating about how they always win seem to overlook the fact that the so-called
sig-abusers always win, too. Usenet is like that. If such meaningless labels are to be pressed into service,
then I would say that Paul has won. Not only by his undoubted stamina, but by the sustained grace, charm,
and mischievous wit of his responses." James Follett, novelist (writing in the newsgroup demon.local).
Paul Rooney (Founder Member, All New demon.local)
| |
| Paul Rooney 2005-07-27, 3:21 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:44:59 +0100, John <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:43:23 +0100, Paul Rooney <paulrooney@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>If you're going to pretend to be someone else then try and at least be
>as imaginative as the original. Loser.
What's wrong with my paraphrase?
--
"Those who indulge in chest-beating about how they always win seem to overlook the fact that the so-called
sig-abusers always win, too. Usenet is like that. If such meaningless labels are to be pressed into service,
then I would say that Paul has won. Not only by his undoubted stamina, but by the sustained grace, charm,
and mischievous wit of his responses." James Follett, novelist (writing in the newsgroup demon.local).
Paul Rooney (Founder Member, All New demon.local)
| |
| Jim Webster 2005-07-27, 3:21 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1122481783.42004.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
> I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in order
to
> use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a financial
> gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they are
> confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland
conifer
> planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell Ingram
> study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants, Douglas
> fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82 % -
> hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
> values have dropped so much over the past few decades.
>
> OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income
(which
> includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer
fences)
> and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
> Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner might
be
> better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the
consequence
> the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own
devices,
> as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.
abandoned land tends to get used, tyre dumps and other such uses come to
mind. Not only that but there are so many people out there with uses for
land now, 4x4 tracks, paint ball, somewhere to leave heavy vehicles, park
carvans when they are not being used. Land further from towns will have less
uses, but what you must remember is that people already own the land. To say
that they will get a better return by cutting their losses presupposes
someone will buy it off them.
For someone to buy it off them, that person has to see a return. So what you
are more likely to see is the land remaining in the ownership of someone who
plants trees, or does 4x4 courses or runs hill sheep, whichever enables them
to make a living
Jim Webster
| |
| Paul Rooney 2005-07-27, 3:21 pm |
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:55:33 +0100, SpamMe
<john_sargent@spanners4us.com> wrote:
>John wrote:
>
>In what way is he pretending to be someone else?
Indeed. In what way? I am me, and well known for it.
--
"Those who indulge in chest-beating about how they always win seem to overlook the fact that the so-called
sig-abusers always win, too. Usenet is like that. If such meaningless labels are to be pressed into service,
then I would say that Paul has won. Not only by his undoubted stamina, but by the sustained grace, charm,
and mischievous wit of his responses." James Follett, novelist (writing in the newsgroup demon.local).
Paul Rooney (Founder Member, All New demon.local)
| |
|
|
"John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:csnee1t3b4n73pb323q5v5921i42h12d21@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 11:05:51 +0100, JB
> <this.is.me@somewhere.else>
> wrote:
>
>
> Not if your vegan. The farm animals will be no more extinct
> than dogs,
> cats or any other companion animal that doesn't get abused.
>
>
> Which is why we need educating about the reality of a meat diet
> and
> intensive farming.
======================
I agree. Every vegan should be taught the facts of intensive
farming. The facts that animals are sliced, diced, shredded,
dis-membered and poisoned by the millions and millions just to
provide their cheap, convenient veggies. It's far more inhumane
than the deaths that meat animals suffer.
What we do with that information is up to each of
> us. No sense shooting the messenger just because some people
> don't
> like the message.
===============
Again, I agree, vegans refuse to accept the truth. That's why
they obcess about what they think meat eaters are doing instead
of focusing on ways they could reduce or eliminate their own
bloody footprints.
| |
|
| On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:41:24 +0000 (UTC), "Golightly"
<golly@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:1122481783.42004.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>
>I mentioned the 'use' of mountain land as only one example of what would (might) happen if we were not allowed to 'grow' animals, i.e. if the veggies ever got their way. In that case your deer stalking option above would not exist.
>
>
>There is one other valuable 'crop' that mountains produce and that is wind. The day may come when when all high ground is a forest of turbines.
>
>
>I'm glad we agree on this. A quick read of some veggie/animal rights (there is little to differ between them) websites will show that they do indeed want a world where no use is made of animals. This doesn't just mean animals for food but animals for l
eather, wool, work, pets or anything else - even guide dogs for the blind have been seen as unacceptable 'animal exploitation'.
Shut up you tart. Stop talking bullshit.
| |
|
|
"Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.mok.net> wrote in message
news:dc8hb3$lfa$2@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1122481783.42004.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...
>
> to
> conifer
Ingram[color=darkred]
Douglas[color=darkred]
% -[color=darkred]
> (which
> fences)
> be
> consequence
> devices,
>
> abandoned land tends to get used, tyre dumps and other such uses come to
> mind. Not only that but there are so many people out there with uses for
> land now, 4x4 tracks, paint ball, somewhere to leave heavy vehicles, park
> carvans when they are not being used. Land further from towns will have
less
> uses, but what you must remember is that people already own the land. To
say
> that they will get a better return by cutting their losses presupposes
> someone will buy it off them.
Maybe, maybe not. If, say, you inherited a block of hill land, and a vegan
dictatorship banned livestock farming (the scenario we were discussing), and
in order to generate any income from commercial softwood forestry you would
have to invest money likely to yield less than the cost of borrowing it, you
would have to be either a mug or an optimist to go ahead, regardless of
whether you could sell the land for something else or not.
> For someone to buy it off them, that person has to see a return.
The person or body purchasing has to (a) have the funds it is willing to
bid, and (b) motivation to bid (a belief the ownership would be to their
advantage), which doesn't have to incorporate a direct financial return from
exploiting the land. For example, once upon a time, some water authorities
owned moorland catchment areas around reservoir sites to ensure no
incompatible activities were carried out there (although, strangely,
shooting was allowed and that was in the days of lead shot). Subsequently,
the land in question was transferred to the National Trust, which body
didn't see much chance of a profit, but still wanted the land for heritage
and conservation purposes.
So what you
> are more likely to see is the land remaining in the ownership of someone
who
> plants trees, or does 4x4 courses or runs hill sheep, whichever enables
them
> to make a living
>
Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to pay
most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or whatever -
although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)
| |
| Jim Webster 2005-07-27, 8:21 pm |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1122491139.10490.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
>
> Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to
pay
> most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or
whatever -
> although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
> dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
> would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)
>
well if you assume take over by a bunch of sad loosers then anything can
happen,
:-)))
but I would point out that if the capital value of the land drops, the %
return from softwood actually increases.
Indeed if the land is worth virtually nothing then investing in timber
production becomes worth considering.
I too don't think that softwood will be a universal end, but remember that
if you have a contractor coming into an area to do 100 acres for me, then
his price per acre will fall if he is also doing 100 acres for you and
another 100 acres for someone else. Similarly if I open a quadbike track or
similar, it might be even more profitable if we run it across your 100 acres
as well as it gives a better track we can charge even more money for.
What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As there
is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has been
happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to stand
on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
applying so we aren't taking part
Jim Webster
| |
|
|
"Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.mok.net> wrote in message
news:dc916i$34r$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1122491139.10490.0@spandrell.news.uk.clara.net...
>
> pay
> whatever -
>
> well if you assume take over by a bunch of sad loosers then anything can
> happen,
>
> :-)))
If they managed to impose a totalitarian state, it wouldn't be them who
would be the losers. I have nothing against people who wish to pursue a
vegan lifestyle, but it has to be a matter of free personal choice. If there
were such a state, I'd put money on suitable uplands, ostensibly purchased
for amenity purposes, being allowed/encouraged to be populated by 'wild'
food animals like deer, hares and rabbits (and wild boar in forested areas?)
and a thriving black market in illicit meat products developing.
>
>
> but I would point out that if the capital value of the land drops, the %
> return from softwood actually increases.
> Indeed if the land is worth virtually nothing then investing in timber
> production becomes worth considering.
>
> I too don't think that softwood will be a universal end, but remember that
> if you have a contractor coming into an area to do 100 acres for me, then
> his price per acre will fall if he is also doing 100 acres for you and
> another 100 acres for someone else. Similarly if I open a quadbike track
or
> similar, it might be even more profitable if we run it across your 100
acres
> as well as it gives a better track we can charge even more money for.
>
> What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
> money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As
there
> is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
> enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has
been
> happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to
stand
> on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
> decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
> applying so we aren't taking part
>
Good points. We will have to hope the next round of CAP reform doesn't
further erode the environmental payments, as I believe some on the continent
have suggested, or we will have the worst of both worlds - no food
production to speak of, and little environmental protection, either.
| |
| Jim Webster 2005-07-28, 7:21 am |
|
"BAC" <casswalk@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1122539437.27422.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net...
>
> there
> been
> stand
>
>
> Good points. We will have to hope the next round of CAP reform doesn't
> further erode the environmental payments, as I believe some on the
continent
> have suggested, or we will have the worst of both worlds - no food
> production to speak of, and little environmental protection, either.
>
Well actually it is the UK government, or at least Tony and Gordon, who have
been demanding further cuts.
As there is no money for production (the sugar regieme is technically still
continuing but is being wound down) all money is for environmental
work/public goods.
Hence any cut in the amount of money is a cut in environmental spending.
By my reckonning a lot of intensive dairy farms will start to drop out of
cross compliance in a couple of years time as the costs of cross compliance
will no longer be matched by the money recieved from SFP.
For hill farms it is more difficult to calculate, much depends on what
happens with other, non-SFP hill farm allowance and similar. But it looks as
if government are intent on cranking up the costs of cross compliance, and
as sheep aren't actually an income stream, but are a cost, it is likely that
we are going to get major changes in the uplands.
Jim Webster
| |
| Golightly 2005-07-28, 7:21 am |
|
"John" <nulluser@notmail.com> wrote in message =
news:hcjfe1pkej5tg9lgoj4g28s0c9scarnd4d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:41:24 +0000 (UTC), "Golightly"
> <golly@hotmail.com> wrote:
>=20
news:1122481783.42004.0@dyke.uk.clara.net...[color=darkred]
order to[color=darkred]
financial[color=darkred]
they are[color=darkred]
conifer[color=darkred]
Ingram[color=darkred]
Douglas[color=darkred]
2.82 % -[color=darkred]
timber[color=darkred]
income (which[color=darkred]
deer fences)[color=darkred]
would (might) happen if we were not allowed to 'grow' animals, i.e. if =
the veggies ever got their way. In that case your deer stalking option =
above would not exist. =20[color=darkred]
might be[color=darkred]
consequence[color=darkred]
devices,[color=darkred]
wind. The day may come when when all high ground is a forest of =
turbines.[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
(there is little to differ between them) websites will show that they do =
indeed want a world where no use is made of animals. This doesn't just =
mean animals for food but animals for leather, wool, work, pets or =
anything else - even guide dogs for the blind have been seen as =
unacceptable 'animal exploitation'.[color=darkred]
>=20
> Shut up you tart. Stop talking bullshit.
Dear 'John', grow up, remove your rosy tinted blinkers and try (I know =
it will be hard) to THINK a little bit.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/art...m?article=3D134
PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group's =
overall goal as "total animal liberation." This means no meat, no milk, =
no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and =
no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical =
research that requires the use of animals.
|
|
|
|
|