Yep, ol' Dubya wants ya ta frenchify yourself.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
Personnally, i like eat this meat. It's right, I'm French. But i don't like Bush.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I'm French, and my reaction to horse meat is yuck. Cliches...
[ February 25, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Horse is not kosher.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I've never had an opportunity to eat horse.
But if I ever had it, I'd take it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I've heard that fries fried in horse fat are the absolutle yummiest, crispiest, fabulousest thing ever. I wold try horse meat if the opportunity arose, although I feel no real need to seek it out... but I'm jonesin' after those fries.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Yuck. It's like eating a motorcycle. Or a car.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Or a cow.
Or a pig.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Or a horse.
Oh, wait. . .
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
AntiCool, I usually don't consider cows and pigs to be a form of transportation.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Exactly. I generally consider a horse a critter, not a means of locamotion.
[ February 25, 2005, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: AntiCool ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
A potentially tasty critter, at that!
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Is there any other kind?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
"If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them full of meat?" -- Homer
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmmm. Any critter I have not tried is, indeed, a potentially tasty critter. However, I am undecided as to if that means any type of critter or any specific critter. I have not, for instance, been too impressed with bunny when I've eaten it. But I am willing to accept that some future bunny I eat may be delicious.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Hmmmm. Any critter I have not tried is, indeed, a potentially tasty critter.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I really do want to try rabbit, horse, and dog.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Snake is pretty good too. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I've had rabbit a couple of times... most recently at a rather snooty French place. (Not implying that French people are snooty. Saying that this place is French and tries to be snooty, probably because they think it's what people expect.) It was roasted, I believe, and came out a bit dry. I think it would be much better in a stew, or possibly braised.
I don't think I've had snake, although there have been a few times at dim sum I didn't know what I was eating, just pointed at what looked good.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"although there have been a few times at dim sum I didn't know what I was eating"
*nods*
Yup, and it is a good thing that you didn't ask. I once told a girl once that the dish she was enjoying was actually tripe. I don't think I got a second date from her....
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote: One man’s protein is another man’s pet!
*shudders*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
As far as I'm aware I haven't tried tripe yet. Next time I'm getting the chicken feet, they looked good but I just couldn't quite wrap my mind around the idea.
Some things I need to be in the right mindset for...
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
I've had chicken feet and tripe. They weren't horrible, but they aren't anything I'll ever seek out again.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
In my opinion, the point of this topic has been missed. Did anyone else read the first article linked? While I have nothing against the consumption of horsemeat (although I definitely wouldn't eat it personally - I'm a vegetarian, and an equine vet tech - it would be like eating one of my pets), I have a problem with the repeal of the ban on the slaughter of wild horses. Raising animals for the specific purpose of eating them is one thing, but I don't agree with capturing wild horses for food. Now, I am sympathetic to the issues brought forth by the farmers and ranchers that the horses are affecting, and the plan of action is seemingly a good one.
quote:Burns said the repeal of the slaughter ban is necessary to manage the herds and protect the range. The measure allows the sale of horses more than 10 years old, as well as any that go unadopted three offerings in a row.
The BLM said it believes the 37,000 free-roaming wild horses and burros on the range are about 9,000 more than natural food supplies can sustain. Its aim is to bring the population down to about 28,000.
On paper, this sounds pretty good. There's an overpopulation problem, and culling the older/unwanted horses is a beneficial solution to the issue. But like anything else of this nature, it can be taken too far. If we legalize the slaughter of the horses now, in ten years what will the population look like? For all I know it could be perfectly healthy and the numbers could be good. It just scares me to think that maybe the horses could be (unintentionally) wiped out by overzealous slaughter for consumption. I'm fairly conservative and for the most part, support President Bush, but his ideas regarding nature and the environment really worry me. Why not allocate some more funds to help the horses? There's got to be a better way to control this. Besides, there is no way to guarantee that with every horse roundup there will be a significant number of horses fitting the description of those to be slaughtered. Will it really be worth the time and money (to those pushing the idea) to capture, say, 5,000 horses and have maybe 1,000 of these be suitable for slaughter? If that happens, isn't there a chance that captured horses will begin to be slaughtered no matter how old or adoptable they are? (Note: These are completely imaginary numbers. I have no idea what the actual ratio would be.)
I'm just worried that it could get out of hand, and before we know it, wild horses could become highly endangered.
What are your thoughts on this?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I can go my whole life without eating tripe and still consider my life a full one.
My grandma said horse meat is tasty tasty.
You used to get it at the pet store for dog food. Or so I know from reading Judy Bloom. I don't know if you still can.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I couldn't bring myself to do more than nibble on fried rabbit.. but then again, I was like 12 and the idea of eating a bunny was horrible.
As for eating horse, I believe it's illegal in california. You can't even sell horses to be slaughtered and eaten elsewhere.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'd want to try it just for the one-liner before I dug in.
"I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm just worried that it could get out of hand, and before we know it, wild horses could become highly endangered.
It sounds like the bill doesn't allow indiscriminate slaughter. I'm not sure if it limits by numbers, age, percentage, or what, but it seems this concern was present when the bill was written.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Raising animals for the specific purpose of eating them is one thing, but I don't agree with capturing wild horses for food.
I don't see how it is better to kill an animal that was raised to be slaughtered than to kill an animal that has been able to live its life in the wild. The second actually seems nicer to me.
But then, I have not problems eating pet animals, so I really don't have the same perspective toward animals as most Americans.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Wouldn't they be Free Range Horse?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I did read the first article, Ava - and found it sad.
Perhaps if we stopped building/developing/otherwise using land that is needed by animals, and stop messing with the natural order of predation, . . .
I just didn't want to interrupt a lot of joking with a thoughtful diatribe on government and human intervention . . .
I also thought the two links were more along the lines of slightly twisted humor, rather than serious political discourse on ecological concerns.
Dunno - I could be very wrong -
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How do you propose to stop developement, Shan? We have a growing population. Should we never let anyone into the country again and restrict people's right to reproduce?
Heck, with a shrinking population we could let land go wild again!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have had tripe several times, cooked in different ways.
None of them would I ever eat again, unless (as was true at the time) politeness required it.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Hmmm... well, I'm hungry enough to eat a horse...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Did I read that the law will also apply to the Burros? And, perhaps, to the little Chimichangas?
Come on, people! They're free range horses! Yum! Kentucky Fried Flicka!
But is it a sign of human overpopulation, or a painful swelling of the underclass that we now have to exploit a previously "untouchable" animal as a government approved food source?
What's next...Soylent Green?
STAY AWAKE PEOPLE!
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I have a lot of experience with this issue. I did a presentation in high school on the BLM wild horse auctions, which have been going on for years. It's an issue in my state less than others because our mustang population is relatively small, but since federal laws affect us all, it's important that we acknowledge the special regional concerns that are at stake here.
In New Mexico in 1993, an environmental group got an injunction against the annual mustang round-up that the BLM conducts. The round-up is conducted in conjunction with careful biological research - the population that can be sustained in a certain area is determined and only surplus horses are rounded up and sold. Not only does this provide an opportunity for local buyers to get horses at reasonable prices (much of the market is driven by purebred recreational horse owners and it makes it hard to get affordable work horses), it also prevents overpopulation. This specific New Mexico case was based on the fact that some of the horses sold at auction were being bought by Mexicans and slaughtered for meat. Because of the risk of some of the horses being eaten, a local judge stopped the auction one year and, as a result, a large percentage of the wild mustang population starved to death that winter. The argument that we shouldn't permit horses to be killed for humane reasons is absurd in this situation - a couple horses were saved from a quick death and, as a result, they got to die a long, miserable death.
These horses are only rounded up on BLM land. BLM land is not land that is being developed. Especially in Nevada, which is largely federal property, it is not human expansion that is causing these horses to overpopulate. We need to remember that these animals are not a native part of the ecosystem here - they came a few centuries ago and their place here is still very tenuous. Regulations that allow them to be auctioned, adopted out or slaughtered, are only conducted after extensive ecosystem research and are done as a protective act for the mustang population.
I suppose the argument could be made that horses can be adopted out rather than slaughtered, but that's just the problem. The horses that are eligible for slaughter are those who have been up for auction for at least three years. There's not a demand for live work horses like there used to be, but there is a demand for meat. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as the animals are slaughtered humanely.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Those are excellent suggestions, The Pixiest, and a fine place to start.
(Thanks, dkw, for pointing that out! )
{Edited for name confusion, gratitude, and a dyslexic finger problem}
[ February 25, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Note: Pixie and The Pixiest are different people.
There has been confusion in the past, so I thought I'd point that out.
You can all go back to talking about horsies now.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Is it even worth mentioning that mustangs aren't native to North America?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yes, I think it is, but Annie already said it. Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Annie mentioned that in her informative and eloquent post.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I must admit, I have an emotional reaction to this that makes me sad, but that is because I am biased towards horses. I really appreciate what Annie said, it adds some perspective to it.
I am curious, ever since I was a little kid and played "Zip and Zap" while driving in the car (When you see a horse you say "zip" and get 5 points each. For cows you say "zap" and only get one point.) I have wondered why there are so many more cows out there than horses.
I still wonder that. Is it because horses are much more expensive to maintain? And is that because we care more about the health of our horses, since they are used for things other than meat? Is it because the reproduction of horses is more closely monitored and controlled? Is it because there is just more demand for cows with our desires for meat and dairy than demand for horses which are more for pleasure now-a-days?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote: Is it because horses are much more expensive to maintain? And is that because we care more about the health of our horses, since they are used for things other than meat? Is it because the reproduction of horses is more closely monitored and controlled? Is it because there is just more demand for cows with our desires for meat and dairy than demand for horses which are more for pleasure now-a-days?
Um... yes. I would say that it's largely the function of horses that makes them so scarce. I do know ranches that still use horses as work animals (not pulling plows and such - but for backcountry transportation. These are usually huge rural cattle or sheep operations), but by and large their use is for pleasure and, consequently, they are very expensive to buy and maintain. Cattle don't eat less, really, but they provide a lot more income and large herds are needed to be maintained as breeding animals for beef operations. (I have limited experience with dairy operations, so I won't comment too much on those.)
Having horses, even a few, is generally a huge money sink. There are people who make money on horses, but they are pretty much exclusively thoroughbred breeders. I had a roommate whose family in Texas makes a remarkable living buying, training, and then selling racehorses, but it's a full-time job for the entire family and requires huge amounts of capital.
Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay. With cattle, injuries much more serious than cuts and bruises warrant not a trip to the vet but hamburgers for dinner.
If the legality of slaughtering horses were to change (as someone mentioned, in some states it's illegal to even sell horses with the intent of slaughtering them), I imagine some of this would change, especially with a large latino population in many of these areas who traditionally have no problem eating horse. In Mongolia, for instance, raising horses provides a very good living for the agricultural class, but that is only because there is a demand and a market for the meat.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay.
Of course, if you own a shotgun, YOU can be your horses vet....
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Probably not if you are the one who paid for the $30,000 little filly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, Annie! That makes a whole lot of sense.
quote: Veterinary bills are also a lot more expensive for horses because not only are they large, complicated animals with rather breakable bits, but most horse owners are wealthy and willing to pay. With cattle, injuries much more serious than cuts and bruises warrant not a trip to the vet but hamburgers for dinner.
And this makes a whole heckofalotta sense.
I entertain notions of owning a horse or two someday--much to Porter's consternation. I imagine the upkeep and equipment get pretty pricy. I don't see me paying anywhere near $30,000 to buy a horse though. Egads!
If eating more horse meant there being more horses in existance and them being cheaper to buy and maintain, well IMO that ain't all bad. I don't see me eating *my* pet horse though.
[ February 25, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Well, $30,000 would get you a horse with a rather nice bloodline. You can get a friendly old nag for $500 - $1,000.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Friendly old nag works for me. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote: But i don't like Bush.
Shuddup, Frenchie.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:You can get a friendly old nag for $500 - $1,000.
No way. I thought weddings cost way more than that.
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote: I don't see me eating *my* pet horse though.
That will just leave more for the rest of us. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
[ February 25, 2005, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:quote" ------------------------------ You can get a friendly old nag for $500 - $1,000. ------------------------------
No way. I thought weddings cost way more than that.
This is why you're still single, you know.
[ February 25, 2005, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Personally, I thought it was hilarious.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I meant the idea that a nag could be friendly. It shows unrealistic expectations.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Please note, however, that I am still single also, and my tastes do not necessarily reflect the majority of American women.
[ February 25, 2005, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
The question is: does he really want to marry the majority of American women?
But that's a whole other debate about issues in western states.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
By the way, I'd just like to randomly brag. You know Senator Conrad Burns (R-Montana) that was sponsoring this legislation? I've had a beer with him.
OK, he had a beer and I had a 7-Up, but we were in fact at the same table and both ate prime rib. He's a very charming man when he's drunk. He offered me a job 5 times.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
And you said NO!?!?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I really had no desire to fetch coffee in a Washington DC office.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
by the way.. maybe I didn't read the story closely enough...
What does this have to do with Bush? I mean, yes, he signed it into law, but he wasn't ADVOCATING eating horses. He did not sponcer the bill. There have been no "I'm George Dubya Bush, and I endorce eatin' Trigger" TV commercials. He hasn't toured the butcher shops of the country with adoring crowds waving inflatable horses. And I have yet to see an Outback commercial that says "Come on down undah and we'll put a horse on the barbie for you, courtesy of your president Dubya". Back in the election, I don't remember seeing "Re-Elect me and I promise a Seabiscuit in Every Pot." in any of the literature...
So is this just another pot shot at Bush? More focusing on minutia?
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: It sounds like the bill doesn't allow indiscriminate slaughter. I'm not sure if it limits by numbers, age, percentage, or what, but it seems this concern was present when the bill was written.
That's why I said it sounded good on paper. Of course it's one thing to say that all the rules will be followed, and only the old, sickly, unwanted horses will be killed. But come on, do you honestly believe that those guidelines will be strictly adhered to? I just can't see whoever is marketing the horsemeat being satisfied with spending all of this money on adoption programs and the maintenance of these horses until they are adopted or slaughtered, unless they are planning on selling the meat at a radical price. Call me skeptical, but somehow I don't suspect those who are pushing the slaughter of the horses really have the horses' best interests at heart.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But come on, do you honestly believe that those guidelines will be strictly adhered to?
Yes.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
How can you be so sure? There are supposed to be strict guidelines on the humane slaughter of animals already, for food, leather, fur, etc. Are THOSE guidlelines followed? Heck no! That's the sole reason I'm vegetarian. I'll eat free-range meat, no problem. I believe God put animals on this earth for our consumption, but I also believed that He intended for us to treat them with respect. The food and fashion industries don't care where their products are coming from, as long as they get a profit. Is there any feasible way to control it? Probably not in the immediate future, but I think there's hope out there eventually. This bill could lead to a similar situation. I don't expect that once these horses are captured for slaughter that they are going to be treated any better than any other food animal. Money always wins. What's cheap is to capture horses until the population is cut down. It'll take millions of dollars to do what this bill is proposing, and sorry, I just don't have enough faith in American law or the morality of the food industry, etc, to believe that it's actually going to work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How can you be sure they won't?
The roundup programs already happen and are run by the government. The horses will be selected by government employees and sold. This will defray some of the costs of the roundup. It will not be a profit-making operation.
quote:I don't expect that once these horses are captured for slaughter that they are going to be treated any better than any other food animal.
This is where your mistake is: the horses are captured already for other reasons. This happens now. The difference will be that some will be selected for slaughter.
Dagonee
[ February 25, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: How can you be sure they won't?
I'm not sure that they won't work. I'm just extremely skeptical, given that the humane laws already in action clearly don't work. I'm having sort of a mental picture of a breaking news story of some scandal involving the mistreatment and wrongful slaughter of too many of these horses, and I'd like to avoid that sort of situation.
quote: This is where your mistake is: the horses are captured already for other reasons. This happens now. The difference will be that some will be selected for slaughter.
Yeah, some horses are captured. But not the 9,000 or so that the bill calls for. And the horses that are captured aren't being killed, they're being adopted out by organizations promoting the welfare of the mustang. But 9,000 of them....where are they going to put all of these horses, exactly? Who's going to pay for feeding them, giving them veterinary care, etc? Surely not the same folks who want to market their meat. Again, I could be wrong, I'm just skeptical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the original link (emphasis added):
quote:It allows for the sale for slaughter of some older and unwanted horses that are captured during the periodic government roundups aimed at reducing the wild population, now estimated at 33,000 across 10 Western states. About 19,000 of the horses are in Nevada.
quote:Since 1971 nearly 159,000 horses have been gathered by the BLM. But a quarter of them never find homes. While the government has recently opened sanctuaries in Kansas and Oklahoma that can each take in 2,000 of the older "unadoptable" horses—horses that remain unclaimed after at least five auctions—there are, on average, 5,000 animals in BLM holding facilities at any given time.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So is this just another pot shot at Bush?"
Good grief, ThePixiest, of course it is. Just look at the bushwhacker who posted it. But ya gotta admit that there is a certain irony in the wishy-washy whichever-way-the-wind-blows of our France-bashing BelovedLeader from "Thou shalt not eat horses!!!"Texas kissing French tushes on his way to bowing down before special interest groups.
However, there are some very serious issues which weren't addressed in the article; or by the posters thus far, except a maybe unnoticed touch by Annie.
[ February 26, 2005, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: bushwhacker
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
First, a bit of history&science relevant to later postings...
The current DesertSouthWest extending westward from DallasTexas though Arizona to parts of California and northward through parts of Nevada into parts of Utah/etc is to a large extent man-made. If you read early EuropeanAmerican settlers' accounts, they talk of the land as the HighChapparal: ie desert grasslands. As settlement grew, more and more of those grasslands -- on both public and private lands -- were overgrazed by cattle, sheep, etc. Where grasses died off because of overgrazing, the land was colonized by the mesquite, creosote, cactus, tumbleweeds**, and similar scrub species.
Now the thing about those particular scrub, mesquite, creosote, cactus, and tumbleweeds is that they have extensive root systems which draw water from a large area surrounding themselves. So any bush, tree, or grass seeds which are deposited (by birds, high winds, etc) around them pretty much just dry up and die. Their own seeds are adapted for such conditions. Without those covering trees, bushes, and grasses, the most fertile soil is blown away, washed away. With the soft/absorbant soils blown away, raindrops directly hit hardpan. Gullys form, enlarging in size to channels and flashflooding rivers. Rain doesn't have the time to soak deeply into the soil, to be later osmoticly drawn upwards as the surface dries.
There are a lot other factors -- eg trees sunscreening themselves by emitting gases&particles which in turn nucleate water vapor into rain droplets which turn into rain -- which allow an ecology to affect its climate into producing weather more favorable to itself. But, in this case, the end result is that overgrazing tripped a fragile balance of grasslands, the few trees left*, and bushes into one that favored an ecology of the "good for nothing" scrubland viewed as "the classical desert" by most folks. A self-perpetuating scrubland, grasses/etc can't penetrate inward. Besides what's already been mentioned, some of those scrub species engage in chemical warfare: poison the soil against return of the species they have displaced. A self-expanding scrubland, the scrub species are perfectly comfortable at the edges where they meet grassland. And draw water from an extensive region surrounding themselves, etc to push those edges ever outward.
* Long before the coming of Europeans, NativeAmericans such as the Anasazi downed an overly large number of trees to build and fuel their settlements, and caused/strengthened the drought/climate which destroyed their civilization; which created the desert of high chapparal.
** Tumbleweeds are an invasive species imported from Russia
[ February 26, 2005, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the definition of a desert is a place that receives less than a certain amount (12 inches/year) of percipitation per year.
If that's a case, why would the die-off of trees and grasses in the region turn it into a desert?
quote:Long before the coming of Europeans, NativeAmericans such as the Anasazi downed an overly large number of trees to build and fuel their settlements, and caused/strengthened the drought/climate which destroyed their civilization; which created the desert of high chapparal.
This makes me ask the same quesiton. How much can changes in the ecology of a region affect the climate/rainfall? It seems to me that they really can't.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I just wanted to say "A Seabiscuit in every pot"
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
While seabiscuits soaked in stews is traditional fare, wild horses couldn't get me to munch on hardtack.
Here is a good start regarding the desertification process, AntiCool. Googling desertification "feedback loop" will get you a lot more info. I'm hesitant to answer further here, cuz I suspect that the GlobalWarming will arise to end up derailing this thread, which is an important topic in its own right.
If you are truly interested, could you please start another thread titled Hey Rabbit... Biospheric Effects on Climate and Weather Add a link -- http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/forum/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=032189;p=2#000070 -- to show the topic's origin. I'd like to draw her into the discussion since Rabbit's strong interest and her husband's speciality is climate change. Besides being more capable of discussing the topic, they should know better than I the jargon to use as searchwords to find links to appropriate articles.
[ February 26, 2005, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Dag is right, and a closer reading of this bill is important. This is not a license to go out and capture mustangs for meat. The horses are already rounded up each year as part of a continued effort to keep the population manageable. This is all managed by the BLM, an organization which is infamous among farmers and ranchers for putting environmental concerns first before agribusiness concerns. I trust the rules to be followed very well.
quote: NativeAmericans such as the Anasazi downed an overly large number of trees to build and fuel their settlements
Ah. I always wondered about all those little log cabins at Mesa Verde. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
will arise to end up derailing this thread, which is an important topic in its own right.