http://www.salon.com/2014/03/21/its...ldlife_extinct/

Ok, so you don’t feel bad about cows having to die in order for you to enjoy a hamburger. That’s fine — most people feel the same way. But what about the grizzly bears? Or the wolves? Or the 175 other species threatened by extinction? Would you keep eating that burger if you found out it was endangering all of those animals, too?

Well, would you?

A new campaign from the Center for Biological Diversity is presenting a broader perspective on the environmental damage wrought by the livestock industry. NPR has the scoop:


The conservation group says that some populations of grizzly bears and wolves have already been driven extinct by the livestock industry, and an additional 175 threatened or endangered species, like the prairie dog, could be next. Most of this drama is playing out on federal lands, where the needs of wildlife conflict with the needs of grazing cattle, says [population and sustainability director Stephanie Feldstein].

The federal government has for decades promoted and subsidized cattle grazing on 270 million acres of public lands in 11 Western states. According to Feldstein, one of the hot spots of livestock-wildlife conflict is predator species like wolves and bears preying on cattle.

The California grizzly subspecies, for example, was driven extinct in the 1920s by hunters assisting farmers and ranchers, according to historical documents at the University of California, Berkeley.

Ranchers also all but wiped out the Mexican gray wolf, the most endangered wolf species in the world, in the U.S. (A few survived in Mexico and in zoos, and scientists have been trying to bring them back through breeding, the group Defenders of Wildlife says.)




A study published back in January adds large carnivores, like pumas, lions and sea otters, to the list of meat industry casualties. All that, of course, comes along with the major impact our growing demand for meat has on the climate. Taken together, it’s worth considering whether that burger is, in fact, worth it.

That's the livestock industry; which I am not a fan of.

Our local farms? Different story.

I know here in the mid west were not some national park and don't have much for "large' predators but for most of us here, as long as it leaves the stock along we let it be. We've seen a mountain lion many times over the last 3 years, its been seen in a appx 5 mile radious and part of that area is in a local state forestry park. It hasn't bothered cattle or peoples pets and we've seen it stroll through our pasture and right past the neighbors horses. As long as the big furry guy leaves our kritters alonge and eats wild life were are fine with him and he's kinda perty on the rare spottings.

Bad of me I know but my concious wouldn't be hurting if we killed too many large prodators to feed ourselves. Survival of the fittest and we need to eat too and I'm not eating fake food or turning into a veggatarian.

I really do dislike row cropping and sugar crops.

The problem outlined here is one of over-hunting. You don't have to shoot every single bear, wolf, predator in order to graze cattle.



Things may have changed since the '20s...

Sounds more like a land management issue. Issue fewer licenses to hunt those things.

Hey... anyone else notice something. They're still grazing herds of cows on grasslands. That's good!

This article is simply wrong. Starting from a statistically incorrect method of starting from the outliers and extrapolating to the mean onto equating conservation laws from the 1920's to those of today it gets the story wrong.

Every survey of predator and prey species, from turkeys to dear to coyotes to wolves shows increasing numbers.

The 1920's were a low point in conservation. It was the New Deal that ushered in more regulation of hunting which caused all hunted populations to increase.

Yes! That jumped out at me too. But it only served to confuse me. If grazing cattle are taking up so much land that they are actually making wildlife extinct, how come grassfed meat isn't plentiful and cheap?

It's the soy bean, wheat, corn, cotton and other fields that kill off wildlife.

Actually soy bean, wheat, corn lead to more wildlife.

I bet hydroelectric projects have done irreparable damage to ecosystems, but I don't see anyone advocating giving up electricity.

I hope there's a solution, but my giving up (bunless) hamburgers won't be part of it.

I sort-of advocate it. That is, I see the damage, especially to the salmon, but I like the comfort of electricity. So if it went away, I wouldn't complain too much. Maybe grumble a bit, but not too loud.

Mining has caused a lot of environmental damage. Mountain top removal for coal is one example, and here in the west the Columbia is very polluted from mining.

Yes.

I'm not sure what the current fad of "the earth must stay the same as it was 20 years ago, or something awful is going on!" is really about, but it bores me. So people like to feel guilty about stuff I guess, whatever. Animals go extinct, it's what happens. Things change, including ecosystems, someday humans will also go extinct, it's inevitable. Why is change enacted by, say, dingos is "natural", while anything done by the top predator, mankind, is not? EVERY animal uses all the resources available whenever they need them. T-rex, the saber tooth tiger and the Levuana moth are all extinct, so what?

The PETA people that get so crazed about things being "inhumane!" crack me up. Yeah. Other animals aren't human. Duh. It's as if they refuse to acknowledge that there are plenty of animals in the world that would gladly eat them in a heartbeat. The world is a tough place, and I for one am HAPPY that we have carved out a more comfortable life than most animals. And will enjoy every minute of it while it's here. Do do otherwise would be churlish and unappreciative.

Humans are like an algae bloom in the pond - just much slower.

Eventually the algae in the pond gets to the point where it can no longer feed itself, and it dies off.

If the human species keeps reproducing at the current rate, it will eventually die off.

The difference is that while the humans take 15 or more years to provide another generation, the algae does it in a few minutes. Therefore our bloom is slower.

And no, I don't think the world should be like it was in the stone ages. On the other hand, it's not about saving the earth, it's about saving our own asses or providing a decent quality of life for our grandchildren.

Look at the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone. We're polluting the once rich in fish and other wildlife Mississippi River Delta to the point where there is now a dead zone the size of Connecticut.

From ABC News

This zone, an area without oxygen and almost completely devoid of life that crops up every summer, covers 5,840 square miles (15,125 square kilometers), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Dead zones are the indirect result of nutrients, largely from fertilizer use, running off into rivers and then into bodies of water such as the gulf. Once these excess nutrients reach the ocean, they fuel algae blooms. The algae then die and decompose in a process that consumes oxygen and creates oxygen-free areas where fish and other aquatic creatures can't survive. This zone can have serious impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries on the Gulf Coast, causing fish die-offs.

Hydroelectricity is great for the first few years. Eventually so much silt builds up behind the dam that it no longer works. Before that, the maintenance starts costing more than the profits of selling the electricity and the dam gets closed and hopefully removed.

Overpopulation is causing dead zones in the ocean where fish we consider food no longer live, and over-fishing to feed the blooming population is taking it's toll on the rest. Fish are wildlife, and a trip to the Canadian Maritime provinces compared with the pictures of the fishing fleets of 50 years ago is as drastic as the reduction in population of wildlife in the Everglades.

Because we are breeding too successfully, we are eating ourselves out of house and home.

Bob