# why Conservation is important



## Dart guy 16 (Jan 16, 2012)

I still consider myself new to the hobby, I have had frogs for only two years and its been a very "learning" two years. I attended frog day 2013 and it was my first one, I learned a little bit about conservation and its importance, I am still trying to find out more about things (so any links are helpful). I am learning about support and fundraising for existing conservational projects out there. I spend a lot of my time doing research and I have not been happy with the results. I cant find much information and do not have much to talk about when I am asked about conservation in my hobby. When the rare occurrence comes along when conservationist from other areas question me about motives of Frog hobbiest/ conservationist I fall short of answers and thats pretty sad, for some reason "i don't know Im still learning" just doesn't cut it. 

I recently had this discussion with a friend who is an animal activist and she said this to me "My problem with programs like tesoro's is that it feeds into three exotic pet trade. When ppl are allowed to think of animals as "pets"and "hobbies" there will always be an illegal pet trade. Plus it sounds like they're taking breeding pairs out of the wild in order to breed and sell them for pets" I did not know what to say to that so please point me in the right direction of learning about these things and give me some answers..

thanks in advance.


----------



## Fantastica (May 5, 2013)

It seems to me that the biggest impact the frog hobby has is breeding the frogs so that they aren't taken from the wild. People tend to buy captive bred if at all possible, reducing the motivation for people to take from the wild.
Yes, we have to take the occasional pair out of the wild, but it's just to start out the captive populations, and rarely to introduce variability.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dart guy 16 (Jan 16, 2012)

well my only answer (and I really hope I did not misrepresent anyone or anything here) was this 

"well I know with the issues of columbia a lot of the forest are being taken out to create drug fields causing several species to become extinct so yes some of these animals are being collected from the wild but they are being bred to bring up their numbers, companies like teseros help legalize the expot/import of these frogs to the hobby since they are illegally being brought in. it cost a lot of money to do so, so giving the peolpe what they want they are doing it in a legal way while trying to preserve certain species"


----------



## Dart guy 16 (Jan 16, 2012)

Again I apologize I am still learning


----------



## Spaff (Jan 8, 2011)

There will always be the argument about whether CB frogs from the hobby reduces the drive for WC importations. I'm not going to get into that argument, though. 

The biggest thing this hobby can do to influence the general public about conservation is educate. I have, on a number of occasions, spoken at local schools or toured neighborhood kids (and even people my age who happen to come into my apartment) around my frog setups, and after their amazement of the little ecosystems in boxes and the brightly colored frogs, I always try to have a discussion about amphibians' plight in the wild. Yeah, it's great that you can keep them in a tank in your closet, but we need to ensure that they're still around naturally for those generations to come. Making other people care is, in my opinion, the best thing that can be done by us. 

The next most important thing this hobby can do for conservation is to support Mark P, UE, and their many partner organizations with their endeavors in the frogs' habitats. I think his model to raise money by providing the hobby with healthy frogs is an excellent one, and I don't think he would have near the success if he tried to do what he has done, except asked us to donate to these projects without receiving anything in return. That's a sad statement, but there are very few people in this day and age who can simply give away money, no matter how noble the cause. By supporting UE et al., you are supporting the conservation of habitat and those species within it, amphibian or otherwise.


----------



## B-NICE (Jul 15, 2011)

I think it's possible to raise money, you'll be surprised by people sometimes...


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dart guy 16 said:


> I recently had this discussion with a friend who is an animal activist and she said this to me "My problem with programs like tesoro's is that it feeds into three exotic pet trade. When ppl are allowed to think of animals as "pets"and "hobbies" there will always be an illegal pet trade. Plus it sounds like they're taking breeding pairs out of the wild in order to breed and sell them for pets" I did not know what to say to that so please point me in the right direction of learning about these things and give me some answers...


This is not a simple topic and I'm not totally sure I want to wade into it again... 

The problem with your friends point of view on the topic is that it is extremely narrow in scope. There are a number of fundamental errors in her assumptions. 

The benefit of captive breeding is overstated with respect to conservation by the vast majority of people. The reason is that rarely (if ever) does the supply equal or exceed demand and this helps to fund the desire for "new bloodlines" or "better quality frogs, because captive bred frogs aren't equal in size, color, etc to wild caught frogs". This creates an artificial demand for the frogs and as long as the wild caught frogs can be collected for less than the captive frogs cost to produce. This is known as the anthropogenic allee effect (for a longer discussion on this http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-2.html#post576511 and http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/sc...e-bred-conservation-efforts-4.html#post586940 (see the associated references for indepth discussions). 

Now where programs like WIKIRI, and Misinjo come into play is that they provide an incentive for the locals to provide sustainable conservation of the habitats... This is where the ark paradigm has a lot of issues because zoos and other institutions have learned the hard way that unless you can engage the locals on the ground, the attempts at conservation is useless as it becomes fiscally impossible (and locally politically unpopular), to enforce the programs. 

So while this does supply animals to pet trade, the benefit towards organisms in a larger picture can be very positive. 

With respect to the animal rights arguments... It depends on what they want to do... for example, vegan practices argue that they are less of an impact on animals.. well, this is true in a limited picture with regards to massive produced and feed lot animals, it is really the opposite side of the coin as the non-animal food production as it destroys habitat and very few animals can survive in a mono-cultured field... (and there are even some interesting animal declines because of the shift in agriculture (for example English Dormice)). If there is really a concern for the welfare of the animals (both domestic and non-domestic) then pasture raised, pasture finished are a good option as there are many many more animal taxa that can survive in a sustainably managed pasture as opposed to a mono-cultured plant community or feedlot style rearing. 
If the argument comes up that at least the animals in the wild have their dignity... the last time I checked, starving to death because your habitat has been reduced below carrying capacity for soybeans or corn production isn't any more dignified.... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Sherman (Oct 29, 2008)

Dart guy 16 said:


> Again I apologize I am still learning


No need to apologize. Thank you for giving this topic your attention.

“In the end we will conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught.” 
-Baba Dioum


**Disregard my signature for this post.**


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

What a multifaceted issue. I believe the majority of people interested in herpetology are also inclined to preserve the environments they are indigenous to. People often argue with me that if I cared so much about the animals I keep then I would not keep them in a "artificial" setting. These type of people don't usually understand habitat loss and the fact that many species kept in captivity outnumber populations in the wild. In a perfect world we could preserve all the beautiful animals and areas they reside. The pressures of billions of humans on the planet will continually strain the earths resources. Hopefully ecotourism, trends toward a more vegetarian diet, technological advances, education, and pure optimism will turn the tide of conserving every unique species (animals and plants). My wife often makes fun of me for quoting The Beatles, "love is all you need". Make fun of me all you want but love really is the answer. Why on earth did God put us here but to love, conserve, and appreciate all the wonders of the world.? If someone has a better answer then please let us all know. Thank you and good night


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Dart guy 16 said:


> "well I know with the issues of columbia a lot of the forest are being taken out to create drug fields causing several species to become extinct..."


For the record, species such as histrionica seem to actually do quite well in many of the coca fields that are being cultivated--Andreas actually mentioned this specifically during his talk at Frog Day 2013. This works out especially well because a coca field is not cultivated year after year after year: after a season or two, they move on to a new field, allowing the former one to regrow. This creates a type of secondary forest habitat that is full of ecological energy and food, and in which Oophaga species (including histrionica) seem to do especially well.


----------



## Dart guy 16 (Jan 16, 2012)

you know what Ron I remember that a little when he spoke about that, I also remember him saying it was critically endangered though.... or am I wrong?


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Basically I'm in line with what most everyone else has said.


Thinking like this though...
*"...When ppl are allowed to think of animals as "pets"and "hobbies" there will always be an illegal pet trade..."*

You will never quell the human desire to have "pets" and/or "hobbies", so while I respect someones personal ethical stance against it, it just isn't a pragmatic approach to ending the illegal pet trade IMO.

And...
I just don't feel there is anything inherently immoral about having a pet as long as you can provide good care and there isn't a lot of pressure put on the wild population/habitat to sustain a pet trade. (Yes often we could do better there)

And what do we do with all the captive bred frogs, lizards, fennec foxes etc..etc...? Do we euthanize everything now or just forbid breeding and let everything eventually die out, then outlaw it all as pets?

Most can't ever go back, and we can't undo what was done, but we can use what we have to satisfy the demand andhopefullyease any pressure on the wild populations/habitats. We can also come down hard on people who don't keep their animals responsibly. (That's where these people efforts and sentiments would probably better be directed)

I see the "omg the injustice!" comments on exotic pets videos like for fennecs or other animals on youtube, and most of it just seems to come from this really naive, if not flat out ignorant and impractical idealist/romantic perspective.

My Fox has her own room. I just paid $40 (after my $10 coupon)for 15LBS of a really really high quality dry food (better then what you can find on most stores' shelves), blew a $1000 last year on a sick ferret etc..etc... The animals in the wild would probably eat their young for a chance to come live like my animals.

I love seeing wild animals in the wild, being wild... but if you can provide a standard of living that on a practical level matches or idealy exceeds the quality of life that animal would have in the wild, then I don't think the animal really gives a flying flip.

IMO, sentiments like that come down to satisfying someone's romantic notion of nature. Responsible keeping of captive animals is a hell of a lot less cruel then ol' mother nature. Nature is beautiful, but she is also very cruel.

So basically I think the OP's friend is a bit naive and while I respect their right to have that stance... I do not share it.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

Dart guy 16 said:


> you know what Ron I remember that a little when he spoke about that, I also remember him saying it was critically endangered though.... or am I wrong?


If it was in regard to the red histrionica, then it was primarily because of smuggling and illegal collection of the frogs...not the drug trade.


----------



## jckee1 (Mar 22, 2011)

It almost sounds as though the drug trade has helped them in some ways. 

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> Nature is beautiful, but she is also very cruel.


Just a side comment here... this is an anthropomorphism. Nature is not cruel, it is only our perception filtered through our empathy that labels it cruel in some situations or kind in others... Nature just is... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Most of these should be correctly recognized as rationalizations on why people should be allowed to keep captive animals. 



Mantella71 said:


> These type of people don't usually understand habitat loss and the fact that many species kept in captivity outnumber populations in the wild.


This is an aside and really has nothing to do with conservation.. for example there are many tigers in captivity but outside of zoos, the vast majority of them are carrying genes for more than one kind of tiger (in no small part due to the white tiger craze from the 70s and 80s)... the vast majority of these tigers do little or nothing for sustaining the wild populations as they are not used as ambassador animals or animals that are used to raise funds for wild populations.



Mantella71 said:


> In a perfect world we could preserve all the beautiful animals and areas they reside. The pressures of billions of humans on the planet will continually strain the earths resources.


Actually the pressures of the vast majority of people are not straining the earths resources.. this has often been touted but each time the population has supposed to reach a "tipping point", innovation has allowed that "tipping point" to be left in the dust. This has been oft repeated since the days of Malthus... 



Mantella71 said:


> trends toward a more vegetarian diet,


As I noted above, a vegetarian diet is just the flip side to the massive line production of meat. A large monoculture field does not help the animals. It reduces carrying capacity. It does not matter where the field is located it is reducing the number of animals that can live in it...or around it. Eat local pasture raised pasture finished animals, reduce consumption of foods transported long distances...... 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Dart guy 16 (Jan 16, 2012)

Ed said:


> As I noted above, a vegetarian diet is just the flip side to the massive line production of meat. A large monoculture field does not help the animals. It reduces carrying capacity. It does not matter where the field is located it is reducing the number of animals that can live in it...or around it. Eat local pasture raised pasture finished animals, reduce consumption of foods transported long distances......
> 
> Ed


Thats Interesting


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Original post by Ed;

"Actually the pressures of the vast majority of people are not straining the earths resources.. this has often been touted but each time the population has supposed to reach a "tipping point", innovation has allowed that "tipping point" to be left in the dust. This has been oft repeated since the days of Malthus... "

If people are not straining the earth's resources than why do so many people die of starvation everyday?


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Original post by Ed 

" a vegetarian diet is just the flip side to the massive line production of meat. A large monoculture field does not help the animals. It reduces carrying capacity. It does not matter where the field is located it is reducing the number of animals that can live in it...or around it. Eat local pasture raised pasture finished animals, reduce consumption of foods transported long distances...... "

Sorry but it is not the flip side or another side of the coin. It does matter where the field is located and what type of environment was disturbed or if a forest was clear cutted. Many animals adapt to human inhabitation, most do not. I do agree with your last statement. Buy local produce, meat, or seafood when possible. But, meat production takes a whole lot more water and other natural resources to produce than fruits/vegetables. I live near the Chesapeake Bay and meat (especially chicken) production is a huge contributor to the bays pollution.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Ed said:


> Just a side comment here... this is an anthropomorphism. Nature is not cruel, it is only our perception filtered through our empathy that labels it cruel in some situations or kind in others... Nature just is...
> 
> Some comments
> 
> Ed


That's true, and actually how I think of it also. I don't claim a particular religion, but if I did Zen Buddhism would probably be it, and that way of looking at it seems to be in line with Buddhist principles, or at least my version of them. 

I was catering (pandering) to the common perception that nature is cruel and comparing/contrasting that with what occurs in nature vs what occurs in captivity to help illustrate my point. (At least when animals are kept responsibility and treated ethically). 

...But I am in total agreement with you there Ed.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Mantella71 said:


> Original post by Ed;
> 
> "Actually the pressures of the vast majority of people are not straining the earths resources.. this has often been touted but each time the population has supposed to reach a "tipping point", innovation has allowed that "tipping point" to be left in the dust. This has been oft repeated since the days of Malthus... "
> 
> If people are not straining the earth's resources than why do so many people die of starvation everyday?


That is often due to circumstances of infrastructure, political situations, carrying capacity of that particular piece of land etc..etc.. Often it is a combination of many factors and those generally lead to poverty and then that leads to starvation. 

I didn't do extensive research but according to worldhunger.org more then enough food is actually produced to feed everyone...
2013 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by World Hunger Education Service


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

My response is parsed out below.



Mantella71 said:


> Sorry but it is not the flip side or another side of the coin. It does matter where the field is located and what type of environment was disturbed or if a forest was clear cutted.


Actually it doesn’t matter where it occurs, the premise you put forth was that a vegetarian diet would assist in the conservation of frogs… It does not, the reasons are multifocal and significant. First off, there are very few animals that can sustain their populations in a monocultured field or in the disturbed habitat adjacent to it. As farms become larger and larger as farmers acquire more and more land from other small farmers as they go out of business, the hedge rows and buffer zones between fields are removed and more and more less productive areas are put into production, the greater the impact on the environment and consequently animals.. including frogs. In addition, we have to also consider the impact of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and their impact on the environment both local and non-local (including the need for energy consumption to produce and transport those materials). One of the final issues with monoculture systems is that it there tends to be significant losses of soil (and associated nutrients and productivity requiring even further inputs). 

If we look into the scientific literature on this topic (using your example of the Chesapeake Bay, we can see that contrary to your assertion that in many cases, nutrient losses from tilled fields was equivalent (particularly those that are over fertilized either with animal manure or chemical fertilizers) to that from animal factory production. In fact nutrient loss from soybeans can be equivalent to that from a heavily fertilized corn field…. 

In any case this is moot since my point was pasture raised and pasture finished which is a form of sustainable agriculture and requires managing the pasture with as little external inputs as possible. In this case we don’t have the increased trophic costs since they use perennial grasses and legumes (grown in the same field as the animals) to meet the nutrient inputs. This is where the system is widely different from that seen in factory farm systems or monocultured fields). The input of water is limited and since the grazing (whether it is a four foot or bird) density and time is controlled to prevent degradation of the pasture, we don’t see the big issues as with monocultured systems. 

In a sustainable pasture system you end up with habitat for not only ground nesting birds but multiple other taxa and it has even been used to help some local populations of endangered bog turtles to recover as it restores their habitats. 



Mantella71 said:


> Many animals adapt to human inhabitation, most do not.


See above, so it’s okay to continue with practices that are known to cause the deaths of multiple taxa? In any case, you’re attempting to justify your claim that vegetarianism is beneficial because some of the animals are not going to adapt to human impact on their habitat. IF your goal is to benefit animals and the environment, you should be supporting pasture raised pasture finished meats, as well as small farms that engage in a biodiverse farming practices. The presence of hedgerows is underestimated as a connectivity corridor for multiple species of animals and these are some of the first things to go with expanding monoculture programs as that is land that can be put into production. 



Mantella71 said:


> But, meat production takes a whole lot more water and other natural resources to produce than fruits/vegetables.


See above, it is just the other side of the coin, the literature doesn’t support your claim particularly when we compare them to sustainable agriculture practices. 




> I live near the Chesapeake Bay and meat (especially chicken) production is a huge contributor to the bays pollution.


This is incorrect. The impact on the bay is approximately the same as the inputs from regular monocultured crops and animals are approximately equal in at least one watershed segment for that bay… 
This is also before we take into account how much of the non-point source nitrogen originates from burning fossil fuels..

Boesch, Donald F.; Brinsfield, Russell B.; Magnien, Robert E.; 2001; Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication: Scientific Understanding, Ecosystem Restoration and Challenges for Agriculture J. Environ. Qual. 30:303–320 )

Horrigan, Leo; Lawrence, Robert S.; Walker, Polly; 2002; How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial Agriculture; Environmental Health Perspective 110 (5):445-456

Tesauro, Jason, 2001; Restoring wetlands habitats with cows and other livestock; Conservation in Practice 2(2): 26-31

Tesauro, Jason; Ehrenfeld, David; 2007; The effects of livestock grazing on the bog turtle [Glyptemys (= Clemmys) muhlenbergii; Herpetologica 63(3): 293-300

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Dendro Dave said:


> That is often due to circumstances of infrastructure, political situations, carrying capacity of that particular piece of land etc..etc.. Often it is a combination of many factors and those generally lead to poverty and then that leads to starvation.


Correct and we shouldn't underestimate the impact of political decisions.... 

Ed


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Ed I respect your frog expertise and you are obviously respected here but you seem to have an answer to everything. I agreed with you in a previous post that if you do eat meat buy locally. 



From chooseveg.com

Nearly 80% of land deforested in the Amazon is now used as cattle pasture.

To produce one pound of animal protein vs. one pound of soy protein, it takes about 12 times as much land, 13 times as much fossil fuel, and 15 times as much water.


From downtoearth.org

Reduce destruction of topsoil & tropical rainforest
•Thirty percent of the earth’s entire land surface—a massive 70% of all agricultural land—is used for rearing farmed animals. Much of this is grazing land that otherwise would host natural habitats such as valuable rainforests. And, of the entire world’s land suitable for growing crops that would otherwise directly feed humans, a third of it is used to produce feed for farmed animals.
•Livestock farming can lead to overgrazing causing soil erosion, desertification and deforestation
. Twenty percent of the world’s grazing land has already been designated as degraded due to the rearing of animals for their meat.
•Livestock production is responsible for 70% of deforestation in the Amazon region of Latin America, where rainforests are being cleared to create new pastures.
•Deforestation increases greenhouse gas emissions by releasing carbon previously stored in the trees. It is also a major driver in the loss of biodiversity – a pressing concern when one considers the fact that just a few species of livestock now account for about 20% of total terrestrial animal biomass.

From Chesapeakebay.net

Livestock manure and poultry litter account for about half of the nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay. States across the watershed have committed to reducing this nutrient load by working with farmers to properly apply manure to cropland, develop animal waste storage systems and restrict animals from streams.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Unfortunately your first two citations are non-reputable sources when compared to the peer reviewed literature. I suggest you read the actual science behind my comments. 

As for the reference in Brazil for growing crops... This does not invalidate my point in any way (even if it was from a reputable source) and in fact it supports my comment on monocultured crops and how people should eat local (pasture raised/pasture finished) sustainable produced meats. If your recommending people to eat vegetarian as a method of "reducing impact on animals", then your giving the wrong advice. There are many many more species that can live in a sustainable pasture than can live in or even near a monocultured field. 

With respect for your commonly touted scale of energy required to meet the needs of animal rearing, those numbers are for feed lot factory farms and do not equate what happens on a correctly maintained pasturage.... And that does not in any way excuse the damage to the enviroment behind large scale monocultures....(which you keep skipping over in your attempts at rebuttal). 

And your third reference is interesting because it claims that 1/2 of the nutrient input is from manure... and *specifically refers to manuring fields to grow vegetable crops..... not exactly the support for your position*. This is just support for the position that monocultured crops are the flip side of the factory meat production issue. 

As for agreeing with my post... you only agreed with my reference on local sourced foods... and disagreed on the rest including the reference on sustainable foods... 

As for the back handed insult, I often have answers for things I'm interested in since I look beyond the publicity campaigns and appeals to emotion.... and there is a pretty extensive body of peer reviewed literature that disagrees with your information. 

Some comments 

Ed


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

Who, what is reputable? Statistics/studies can and always will be manipulated for whatever "cause" they are trying to support or dispute. My main concern is conserving, protecting every environment. I'm not getting into a pissing contest over the benefits of not eating meat because I gave that up a long time ago. Read, learn, listen to your heart to benefit everyone and everything in this world. After all it's all we got. Peace.


----------



## PumilioTurkey (Feb 25, 2010)

LOL

Peer reviews studies can be manipulated and aren't that good....

BUT

random websites that promote veganism are ok and can be taken for the truth.....


Sorry but if you're gonna refute Ed, at least use some sites or sources with credibility and NOT some vegan online shops.....








And this reminds me why I dislike vegans and animal rights activists.....the whole "holier than thou" attitude and the mindset that if you scream it loud enough it becomes true...


----------



## Dendrobait (May 29, 2005)

Seems like the ideal situation is backyard produce, or else locally grown. Small farms plant plants in a way similar to a forest and provide more habitat than monocultures. The dis of course is labor involved in harvesting...


----------



## Mantella71 (Oct 7, 2013)

I am not a vegan or some wacko. I am simply someone who cares for animals and the environment. I would like to believe anyone who keeps darts/herps would care as well.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I don't understand why a study is needed. It's quite simple, if we ate what the animals ate we wouldn't have to use the land we use to grow food for them. It takes much more energy to turn plants into meat than it does to just eat the plants. All things equal. I understand we don't eat grass but we eat grains and could just leave the fields to till under to repair and build. This way we wouldn't need the cow shit or the Ecoli that comes with it(I understand the ecoli wouldn't be there if they were grass grazed). I did a study in Oregon though on the Boardman Bombing range that suggested the Long Billed Curlews weren't doind any better from cattle grazing, neither was the cryptogamic soil or any plants that relied on it being around.
And pumilio seem to do fine around plantations(banana, brazil nut, etc.)


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

They did create amphibian habitat though as there leaky water troughs were good habitat for the red back toad that lived there. Although the sage sparrows weren't doing well because of habitat. I wonder what it was like before they grazed it and there was still cryptogammic soil there though. I certainly know they changed the habitat dramatically.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

Plus, you can grow veggies and fruits on a fire escape, windowsill, deck, roof, wall, front yard, all places where you can't have cattle, pigs or goats and sheep. And if you can attach a greenhouse to the south wall of your house you can cut the heat bills in most places and provide good cold season crops out of season of cabbage loopers.

Personally, I buy grass grazed beef and hunt and fish and plan on meat chickens and other things now that I have a whole lot that doesn't flood to farm. I do enough to not worry about my food habits. Until then I can get eggs down the road and the Flint market goes year round for local foods. They have quite a few locavore(sp?) places which include beers brewed from everything produced in Michigan. I really like this state!


----------



## Noel Calvert (Jan 8, 2013)

Mantella71 said:


> Original post by Ed;
> 
> If people are not straining the earth's resources than why do so many people die of starvation everyday?


This can be attributed to the false scarcity that our economic system has created to feed the greed for more money by artificially raising the value of resources. Also the fact that corporations are very seldom donating food or money to those starving. In fact most corporations have policies exactly in the opposite vein to that notion... McDonalds for instance has fired their workers for giving away food after hours instead of throwing it in the dumpsters even if the workers seek permission to do such things from their managers. For more information on the false scarcity thing I mentioned you can look at the videos of Zeitgeist.


----------

