Grand Idea

I'm not trying to bash, and for those of you who think I am, well, you have
a serious complex. This is a simple request for an actual discussion,
without the whole, "Well, you're wrong. I can't prove it, but you're wrong
because I'm always right." crap. COME ON!

I'll be back tomorrow...hopefully, if I got through some thick skulls, this
won't turn into a flame war. If it has, I'm outta here.

Namaste
Jeni

"Animal Rights" would pretty much only accomplish two things:
1. the elimination of domestic animals
2. the elimination of human wildlife population management
Neither is worthy of contributing to, imo.

I don't know what the original charter of this
newsgroup specified as the group's purpose, but today's
reality is, it is not a group for a lot of ethical
naifs - like you - to sit around and "debate" the finer
points of how to pat yourselves on the back for your
phony, sanctimonious view of yourselves. Instead, the
very notion of "animal rights" is challenged. If you
think you can defend it as a coherent philosophy, feel
free. No one has done so in the (almost) three years
I've been here. But you're not going to get some kind
of free pass on any of your assumptions.

You're going to have to demonstrate a little more
honesty and even-handedness than you have so far in
complaining about the tone of the debate. You seem to
be picking sides based on sympathy with a point of
view, excusing in your buddies that which you claim to
find offensive in your opponents. In particular, you
seem to be cozying up to "mbongo" and "camcompany",
either not realizing or being willfully blind to the
fact that these two knuckleheads are purely
recreational trollers. Neither one has ever offered
anything of substance. "camcompany", aka
"chumpcompany", in particular seems nothing more than a
toady for "mbongo".

Camcompany.

But the animal "rights" movement is based on moral myopia. If you
truly become more aware, the idiocy of the movement becomes apparent.

The animal "rights" movement is about bashing select groups of people,
such as researchers and hunters, to divert your attention from the
fact that you make choices that cause enormous animal suffering for
nothing more than your convenience.

Good! Do you want to become more aware of the animal death and
suffering caused by your choices, or do you want to pick targets and
misrepresent the animal death and suffering caused by their choices?

Do you want to learn about the deaths caused by your choices, or the
choices of others?

I'll be happy to tell you about research, in which we use animals in
all the methods promoted by the animal "rights" movement as
"non-animal alternatives."

Yes, but that's YOUR opinion, based on what you see through your eyes. What
I see is more complex.

For starters, I have a cat. A.K.A. a domestic animal. AND, I grew up on a
farm, and we raised animals. None for meat, mind you, basically because it
was too small a farm to have ample support from the government (two goats,
three pigs, and a duck or two hardly counts.) But, I feel, in order to see
the truth about "Animal Rights", you have to look at both sides of the
picture. On one extreme, you've got animal activist who would like nothing
better than to live in a Utopia where man and animal live together in
harmony. What they tend to forget is that most "domestic" animals, are,
well, domesticated and have little or no knowledge of how to live on their
own. For instance, why do you think that the grazing grounds for cattle are
usually small and not very hilly? Ask a farmer. If you let your cattle
graze on hilly ground, and they fall, they won't get back up. They don't
have that will in them, the fight of the wild animal. So, they lay there
and die....heard of cow tipping? Wonder why it's illegal?
Now, if someone from the Animal Activist side has an excellent idea on how
to "rehabilitate" the cattle, I'm totally all for it. I don't see any real
good pro's to eating beef, or any meat for that matter. I, personally, want
to see more free range farms where the animals are raised for rehabilitation
purposes, not meat.
And, on the other side, we've got the "Pro-meater's".....not sure what the
technical lingo is, but, I'm sure there is a name.

Anyway, the people who don't see the point of Animal Rights don't really see
the whole picture. Okay, many people say "Well, the Bible says that God put
the animals on the earth for man to oversee and to take care of and rule
over..." Sure, okay, if you belive in it. I don't. Don't shove that shit
down my throat. Besides, that's a whole other discussion. Others think
that it's just another part of our ecosystem, the circle of life. Well, it
would be if the way we got our meat was part of the "circle" of life. The
circle of life is "birth-hunt-eat-die-be eaten" See a pattern? Now, with
us humans, it's "birth-go to the supermarket-eat-die-get buried in a box or
burned and put in an urn" Hmmmm....circle of life? no, we've removed
ourselves from it, yet, we take from it as well. You don't look at the
effects of the human population on the world. I doubt monkeys could have
fucked up our planet like we have. Sure, cow flatulence is methane, but, do
you think there would be so much of it if there were so many cows raised for
beef or milk?

Now, onto the milk issue....
Okay, for the women on this list who have children, this is for you. You go
through pregnancy, and the birthing process, then, you nurse your child.
Your milk is meant for that child, and that child alone. When you stop,
usually it hurts. If you stop abruptly, damn straight it hurts! It's
called CALCIFICATION....basically meaning hardening of the milk sacs. What
do you think would happen if all the cows stopped producing milk right this
moment? Well, since most cows udders are a bit bigger than a ladie's
breast, it's a bit harder on them. I've seen udder calcification, and it
ain't pretty....usually, the cow "gives up" because of the pain....and, by
give up, I mean die. cow's don't exactly have the where-withall to handle
any pain.
On the other hand, cow's milk is not inteded for human consumption. We now
have the technology where we can get our daily vitamins in pills, soy and
rice milks, and other products. Why put so many cows on the job for that
when we have the technology to do it ourselves?

Anyway, I probably just started something huge.
I'll go now.

Namaste,
Jeni

Sue

Starting with you, Bitchup.

How can you become aware of Animal Rights, animals don't have rights, not in
the sense of human rights.

If you have thin skin, or can't handle criticism of your position, then you
may as pack it in now, you don't have what it takes to converse here. This
is the wild and wooly world of usenet, there are no rules. Anyone with
strong opinions learns to endure repeated badgering and insults from those
who would undermine them. It comes with the territory. All I can tell you
is, I don't have a single bruise.

I believe this is one of the things which AR people disagree with. It's
not necessarily a correct statement that you have there, but of course,
in this newsgroup, and suggestion to the contrary is met by meaningless
insults and incomplete arguments from the usual people...

SNIP TO END

I've never known cattle to sleep standing up, and don't believe
that cow tipping is any more than a myth.

The animals we raise to eat depend on that practice for their
lives and always will, regardless of what happens to animals in
different groups.

We've only been at it for about 10 thousand years. We may get it
right in the long run.

People could contribute to less animal deaths by eating grass raised
beef, and grass raised dairy products instead of soy products. We can
get hundreds of meals from the death of one grass raised cow or steer,
and a tremendous amount of milk from a grass raised cow. An equivalent
amount of food obtained from soy and rice products would result in more
animal deaths in fields due to machinery and *icides.
_________________________________________________________
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pastures/Grazing/Systems/Techniques/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

That was a thoughtful reply, but I still see "AR" as only
promoting the two things I mentioned to begin with.

The *animals* don't "depend" on anything, Fuckwit.
They don't care.

Does your mommy know you're using language like that on
the internet?

Very cute.....considering the fact that I AM the mommy, dear Jonathan...

Besides, why don't you actually come up with an intelligent reply, instead
of trying to piss me off?

Jeni

the way the world is going today, humans don't have rights unless they're
rich or powerful

I'm not worried about being bashed for my P.O.V. I get that every day.
What I AM sick of are posts like what Jonathan posted, i.e. :Ooh, does your
mommy know you use that language on the internet?

COME ON. Don't be an asshole. Have a normal debate conversation without
resorting to kindergarten tactics...it makes you no better than the
politicians you bash

Jeni

Look: it's obvious you're a kid; a fairly articulate
kid, but a kid nonetheless, with all that implies.
Among other implications, it implies you don't
understand much about usenet. Your longwinded posts
are proof enough of that.

Do a search on "Occam's Razor", understand what it
means, then begin using it. Less is more.

Guess all those cows I see lying down to sleep just never get up, eh?
Come on back tomorrow, I'll take another side splitter then.

======================
Why? Those free-range animals can provide more humane food than what
you're buying at the super-mart right now! How many deaths are involved
in 800lbs worth of free range beef meals and 800lbs of tofu
meat-replacement? Is it even close? I doubt it! But then, it's really
about your hatred of others, and not really about reducing animal death
and suffering, is it?

==================
Omnivores, you know, the way we are supposed to be.

---------------------
Yes we do. We just see the whole picture, even the parts that you
AR/vegan loons leave out. You know, the part where all the animals die
for your cheap, convenient veggies and western lifestyle. Why do you
AR/vegan loons always ignore those animals? Oh, yeah, because you
aren't really trying to save animals, just trying to feel sanctimonious
while oozing your hatred and demonization of others that don't fit your
delusional idea of the world. That big picture?

=========================
For the 'mommy', you sure have problems with expressing yourself with
child friendly words, eh?

-----------------------
Some, like you, take far more from it than others. You just like to
pretend that you don't. Makes for a better feel-good high that way,
doesn't it?

===========================
Mommy, is that a bad word?

snippage...

ARAs tend to forget a lot of things, but I doubt that's one of the
things many of them "forget".

They're not, at least not often enough to say "usually".

and not very hilly?

Grass grows better on flat land.

Ask a farmer.

You obviously haven't.

1) They rarely fall.
2) They will get back up unless they are injured.

Your emotions are running rampant.

Nope.

....heard of cow tipping?

Yep.

The act of cow-tipping itself is not illegal. The illegal act is
trespassing on someone else's property and potentially harming their
animals.

So?

Realists.

That's a hell of an opinion stated as fact, would you care to
support it?

You're ranting.

Nah, there wasn't anything that important in what you said. Like
most ARAs, you come to these newsgroups with pre-conceived notions
that you try to support with nonsense and irrelevance. Of course, you
and the collection of AR morons can now accuse me of attacking you. I
wasn't, I was attacking your post. There was nothing of substance to
anything you said, and much of it was simply false.
Kevin

> >

Has the world worsened in this respect since the beginning of recorded
history?

Tough, killfile him if you don't like him. That's a lot easier and more
effective than trying to control him.

I suggest you quit whining about how others conduct themselves and begin to
engage in some on-topic discussion, if that's what you want.

Regards,
Ray Camcompany

It's a complete waste of time to try to discuss anything with J.Ball. His
only interest is in slinging insults and foul language. If you respond,
he obviously gets some kind of sick sexual gratification out of it. He
also will be even more vicious since you are a woman. It's best to
ignore him, otherwise he will go on and on and on and on...

Sue

Of course it's correct. Can you imagine it being legal and accepted to set a
spring-loaded trap to break the back of a person who tries to steal cheese
from your pantry?

So you decide to make meaningless insults and incomplete arguments
yourself...

Then you should have waited until *after* you were out of high school
to begin making babies.

You're walking around in a great big sandwichboard sign *begging*
people to piss you off, Jeni. You are so youthfully earnest, and so
full of preconceived notions, and goddamned longwinded. Try to pare
it down a little, at least.

But here's your reply: "ar" is bunk. Even the people here who claim
to believe in it don't; not really. It's nothing more than
feel-goodism run amok. It's based on a rule, illogically derived from
a false belief, sleazily substituted for any real principle. The
belief is: If I don't consume any animal products, no animals died
for my lifestyle. The rule is: Don't consume any animal products.
The principle for which the rule is unsuccessfully and wholly
unsatisfactorily substituted is: Animals have a "right" not to be
harmed by humans.

Your "lifestyle" causes massive death and suffering to uncounted
numbers of animals. You do not abide by the ethical dictates of
animal "rights". You benefit from deaths of animals, and you have no
intention of stopping. You don't directly kill the animals yourself -
most of the time - but they are killed all the same, in huge numbers,
and you are morally complicit in their deaths. Therefore, you do not
have a platform or pedestal upon which to stand and imagine that you
are looking down and wagging your sanctimonious finger at those who
believe it is permissible to use animals in ways that harm them.

She has no business calling anyone foul mouthed, as she embarrasses
stevedores and teamsters and sailors with her own language. Not long
ago, she referred to someone as a "sick arrogant fuck". This was
after, of course, Bitchup's standard and baseless accusation that the
woman was "stalking" her.

"RGB" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<a9i6qt$lq3$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>...

No, the farmer kills all those animals. It would be wrong to
say anything else causes those deaths because it simply isn't
true.

The farmer benefits from those deaths. He makes so much
more profit by killing them that he even uses chemicals so
can carry on killing and profiting while he sleeps.

By the farmer.

We can only be responsible for our own actions. You
can't accuse people of being responsible for the actions
of someone else. The farmer kills those animals and is
wholly responsible.

Yes we do. Your diet insists that an animal be killed in
order for you to eat it, whereas the vegan's diet doesn't.
If any animals are killed during the process of our veg,
then the farmer who killed them in order to make more
profit is to blame, no one else. The vegan lives a death
free lifestyle, and your useless efforts to queer this fact
by pointing your finger at us for the deaths caused by the
farmer isn't fooling anyone. The virtuous vegan has every
reason to wonder why you need to kill animals purely for
taste because we feel your interests in eating them are
trumped by the animal's rights to life.

hmmm....I think that's part of what I do here....I don't just post on this
message, A.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones

My point is, that you don't come waltzing into a new forum demanding
that people start adhering to your standard of debate, OR ELSE you will
take your keyboard and go home. You have NO pull here, you're a newbie,
and a fairly clueless one. Take it or leave it.

Derek wrote:

It is wrong for you to pretend that you do not share in
the responsibility for it. The farmer kills those
animals in order to feed you. You do not have to buy
from that or any farmer, but you willingly choose to do
so, knowing exactly what he is doing. You support him
morally as well as financially. If the collateral
deaths are morally wrong, then you are doing something
morally wrong. End of story, Derek.

You benefit from those deaths.

No, you make the overwhelming bulk of that profit, in
the form of lower costs at the grocery store.

For you.

No, that's false. You share moral responsibility for
encouraging the farmer to keep on killing animals.

You share responsibility, because you continue to
reward the farmer for his method of farming. If you
*really* didn't like what he was doing, you wouldn't
buy from him. You continue to buy from him, even
though you are not obliged to do so, so we know you
approve of what he is doing.

No, you do not. You are operating under a logical
fallacy, a false belief that because you don't eat any
dead animals, no animals died for your diet. That
belief is a lie: animals did die for your diet, and
you know they did, and you know that because you refuse
to do anything differently, animals will continue to
die for your diet. Your view of your ethical position
is based on a false belief, on a deliberate lie.

Irrelevant. Animals die, and you claimed they didn't.
When it was proved to you that they do, you waved
your hands and shouted and tried to escape
responsibility for it, even though the responsibility
cannot be avoided.

You. It is not for more profit; it is for lower cost
to you. You benefit. You encourage him to keep doing
as he has always done. You are responsible.

That's a lie, Derek. The hypocritical "vegan" is a
receiver of stolen lives, full stop.

> and your useless efforts

No, they're not useless at all, Derek. They have you
coming back in full fury every time, desperately trying
to avoid a responsibility that, in part, lies on your
shoulders. You are lying, and you are compounding your
irresponsbility by trying to evade responsbility you
know you have.

And lying bigots like Sue Bishop.
Kevin

Please pay more attention to spelling, Kevin. It's
"Bitchup".

LOL!

What're YOU laughing about, Fuckwit?

Good. It's about time you learned you can't beat me on this.
Not even on a bad day.

You don't have to argue this point with me if you don't feel
you're likely to win it, Jonathan. Everyone will understand.
If it's any consolation; I think you made a good effort, but
common sense prevailed yet again, thank goodness.

[..]

I don't pretend anything. I would say the pretence is coming
from you, rather than myself. If the farmer kills for profit
then he is responsible. It's very simple to see who's
responsible unless you want me to pretend I did it. You can
pretend you're responsible for what the farmer does if that's
what floats your boat, but don't go around insisting everyone
else should join you in your pretence, because it's not the done
thing to do, frankly.

No, he kills them for profit and I have the proof:
[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably costing you, the
producer, at least $25 annually. Can you afford them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why

Yes, I know that every death he causes is of his own free
will and that he is responsible for every one of them. I'm
not responsible for what he does at work, and he's not
responsible for what I do either.

Paying into any system does not make me morally
responsible for what goes on in that system. My taxes pay
for the bombs that fall on the innocent Afghani children, and
they also pay the farmer, too. I'm not responsible for any of
these deaths just because I pay into the system that causes
them.

That's not true at all. The farmer is to blame for what he does,
not anyone else.

> End of story, Derek.
>
Not a chance, Jonathan.

Are you suggesting the farmer doesn't?

Nevertheless, he does profit from these deaths. The evidence
form http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why
proves that nicely.

For profit, not me.

I encourage him to grow crops, not kill animals. He does
that to make a profit.

No, that's ridiculous. I pay him for his produce, not
the methods he uses in producing them.

No, I don't approve of what he's doing and I don't approve
of police brutality either, even though I pay both their wages
through my taxes. I do not feel in any way responsible for the
methods used in either.

Those animals are killed for the farmer's profit, not my
diet. You are using the denial of the antecedent fallacy
wrongly. I am a vegan, therefore no animals die for my
food. They die for profit and I have shown you proof
of this from an undeniable source. Read it and weep.
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why

There is nothing for me to avoid. I cannot accept responsibility
for speeding police drivers who mow down old ladies during
street chases after joy riders. I can't accept responsibility for the
deaths during the construction of tall buildings or the Panama
canal, just because I benefit from them. Farmers must take their
own responsibility seriously and try to minimize these cd's. The
burden is upon them to use better storage methods and take
the responsibility for the deaths they cause.

In case you missed it; here's the link to that site which proves
cd's are for caused for profit.
[Remember, each rat on your farm is probably costing you, the
producer, at least $25 annually. Can you afford them on your farm?]
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/dairy/facts/86-036.htm#Why

> You benefit.

No I don't, the farmer does.

I encourage him to provide me with veg. I don't encourage
him to kill wantonly.

> You are responsible.
>
How do you work that out? I didn't kill anything.

We don't kill or persuade anyone to kill on our behalf. We
get what we pay for; veg. If the farmer killed a few animals
while getting my grub to the shops, then it's his conscience
you should worry about, not mine. My conscience is
perfectly clear, thankyou very much.

Take it somewhere else. I'm not biting into that " I know you
know I know" bull shit. The cd guilt trip is flawed because
no one can control them but the farmers who cause them.
Look to them and keep your pointy little finger up your nose.

Oh my! What a horrid, cruel, inhumane act that would be!!! Yet we do it
to mice... AFAIK, most AR people see this as the issue. Okay, maybe the
'have' above is the problem... animals don't 'have' rights at the
moment, but they should.

Either withdraw the 'and', or quote one of my meaningless insults. Really, I'm forgetful...

A few animal welfare advocates advocate a more humane form of mouse
control, but I doubt if you will see it mentioned on any "Animal Rights"
agendas. Try www.peta.com or any other of the large animal rights
groups, and you will lots of mention of mice who are used in medical
research, even though THEY don't have their backs cruelly broken. In
fact they are generally treated exceedingly well. Why the discrepancy?

Really? ALL animals? Rats, mice, toads, frogs, lizards, grasshoppers..

If not, where do we draw the line and why?

The snide slap at the "usual people"
>
>

Having lived on farms, estates, houses, flats, campsite, trailers in
my time & I have never had cause to kill a mouse, rat or anything.
Control and capture, yes. There is no requirement to kill them.

Of course, all life has rights. Rights to not be abused by us, just
because we can. more importantly, WE DONT have the right to abuse
anything but ourselves.

LOL!!!

You define the lack of intelligent reply, Fuckwit. You
are the gold standard - make that the coal standard -
of stupid, absurd, fuckwitted replies.

On an individual level, small scale, it's probably possible to minimize
killing them, barring an infestation, but what about a single farmer
with a couple of square miles of grain, how does he control pests? If he
COULD capture them all, where would he put them? Next field over? Would
the neighbours' mice and grasshoppers be coming his way?

I don't think we need to "abuse" animals either, but that's not what I'm
talking about.

Therein lies one of the myths. If you leave a corn field alone, it
will be eaten and stripped bare!!! this is simply NOT true.

Yes you may have peaks and troughs of pest problems, but that is life.
There is simply no need to kill everything, JUST IN CASE it eats the
crop!! it just doesn't happen like that.

No. But you seem to be under a misapprehension here that anyone who is
prepared to try not harming animals, is in fact a bigger abuser than
those who openly just want to kill everything, that creeps and crawls,
excluding themselves.

This is simply untrue.

Jeni,
You have already experienced the worst of this newsgroup. No doubt you have
some points to put over to those of us who are prepared to listen. Pardon my
language - but do not be detracted by a little wet fart who thinks he owns
the joint. Somehow I don't think you will, I hope not.

Ray
Camcompany.
------------------------

Ray
Camcompany

Sadly I think it's part of the conditioning, the modern world has
become accustomed to. If it doesn't fit, destroy it. The very same can
be said for the weeds!! who on earth decides a weed is a weed, to be
destroyed? Most weeds bloom and flower, just like the prettiest
flowers & the insects love them.

This is what is happening here, when one dares to speak out against
this conditioning. We are attacked and vilified. But the main thing is
to continue. One day we will all walk with eyes wide open.

It's no myth, pests WILL consume and/or render unusable all or a large
portion of a crop, whether it's corn, grain, fruit, or lettuce.

It frequently happens just like that. If pests like grasshoppers were not
controlled by spraying, and weeds were not likewise controlled, crop farming
would be untenable. It wouldn't provide the food we need. The other aspect
is creatures who occupy the space during ploughing and harvesting, most of
them can't be reasonably protected. If you want to try in your own garden,
it's your choice.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to use their land any way they want.
It's ARAs who want to impose their naive world view on everyone else.

> This is simply untrue.

>Hey, hold on just a minute there! I like weeds as much as anyone, but I have to
>remove them by law. A lot of them. :-(

Not your fault then. Clearly different from wanton abuse.

What circumstance does the law require their removal then?

I disagree. Yes they will consume a portion, so what? we reap what we
sow. If we spray and kill "ALL" the insects, we also lose the ones
that benefit the crops & protect the crops by eating the pests.

If one area has a particular problem with a particular pest, then grow
something else!!

Sorry I just don't accept this.

There are many ways to crack a nut.

http://creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/field/amhopper.htm

Biological Control
The biological controls known for the American grasshopper affect the
population on a small scale. Blister beetle (Coleoptera: Meloidae)
larvae, which develop in the soil, consume grasshopper eggs.
Grasshoppers also fall prey to a number of birds. Cattle egrets
consume large numbers and to a lesser extent so do robins, mocking
birds and crows. Grasshoppers are sometimes parasitized by other
insects. The larvae of flies (Diptera: Sarcophagidae and Tachnidae)
have been found in grasshoppers. The fungi Beauveria bassiana and
Metarhizium flavoviride are currently being tested for biological
control.

Cultural Control
Disking and plowing are two good ways to destroy grasshopper eggs and
it also kills small nymphs. In citrus groves, clean cultivation acts
as a deterrent to oviposition and it reduces the number of newly
hatched nymphs. The time of cultivation is very important. If
cultivation is done too late the grasshoppers may actually be driven
to the crops for a source of food. In Florida, young pine plantations
in which weed control is not practiced, have yielded high levels of
grasshoppers. These grasshoppers have been known to affect crop plants
that are near the boundaries of the pine farms. A continuous weed
suppression program would avoid this problem.

Also sacrificial borders and the like would be a great help. The
grasshoppers eat the borders & leave the main crop alone.

Trouble with sprays they kill the good and the bad & we also lose the
dependant wildlife, which in the past would have controlled the pests
as well.

Of course it would. We are way over producing anyhow.