UKC

As a vegan, taking on a new sport/discipline requires research. With the help of the Veggie Guide team, we have put together a simple guide to vegan climbing products.Read more

In reply to UKC Gear:

Without wishing to disrespect Josef's personal convictions, I though nylon brushes were widely regarded these days as more damaging to the rock than boar's hair and therefore frowned upon?

In reply to UKC Gear:

Plants have feelings too!

In reply to SuperLee1985:

youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY&

In reply to UKC Gear:

Great article, thanks

In reply to UKC Gear:

The most useful bit of kit for an outdoorsy vegan

https://www.ortlieb.com/en/T-Pack/

In reply to UKC Gear:

Great article... Good to know.

I must say I'm saddened by the disparaging comments tho... WTF! As soon as you mention veganism you get people chelping on about plants having feelings and other trite nonsense! Wanna mention bacon, lions, canine teeth or protein next? Pretty sure vegans have heard those too!!!

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

I agree, it's never good to be disparaging. What I'd be interested in, is some kind of study into the overall impact on the planet of vegan and none vegan products, both as a way of encouraging recycling when it's synthetic vegan things, and as a way of working out whether any none vegan products are at all 'less green', or greener as the case may be.

I've been wondering whether if something is less green, or contributes to climate change more than an alternative, in the long term does that make something more harmful to animals, in a species dying out &/or pollution sense?

When I emailed the company Rab about it, when he still ran Rab I can remember Rab Carrington replying that down which is a by product of the slaughter industry is greener than synthetic insulation (this was before steps were made to make certain kinds of synthetic eco- insulation, so this may be out of date by now) derived from fossil fuels. I'm wondering if, in a roundabout way, this could be kinder to the animals which need cold weather, which aren't killed to be eaten, than something synthetic may be (excluding certain kinds of modern synthetic eco-insulation).

What I'm trying to express, is that things may be nuanced, in that though eating animals isn't green, unless people stop eating geese and ducks,, down could be argued to be 'more vegan' (I can't think of a better term off the top of my head than this in quotes) or certainly greener at least, from not adding to global warming in the way synthetic insulation can, and that the same may apply to other none vegan products too.

I'd like a really depth look into the ecological footprint of all outdoor gear, I think that could be very helpful, so that buys can see the overall picture of what impact on the planet and how.

In reply to Timmd:

I thought that this was a well argued piece, but not the in-depth study that you'd like to see...

http://www.vocativ.com/281599/vegan-leather-isnt-as-ethical-as-you-think/

If memory serves, the textiles that are consistently thought to be the most eco-friendly (in terms of reducing toxins and waste) are bamboo, cork, hemp, linen, organic cotton, soybean fabrics and recycled polyester.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Good, helpful article on a topic most people wouldn't even consider an issue. I for one am glad there are people out there helping to spread the info to a greater audience, as it can be daunting for people who have recently made the step to 'veganism' to know what products are / aren't vegan friendly (it doesn't just apply to food stuffs y'know!).

I agree with the comment about people making disparaging remarks, as though its fine to start taking the piss out of people and so on as soon as the word "vegan" is used, and then condemn those people as being in your face and high and mighty as soon as they attempt to defend themselves.

In reply to Timmd:


It seems to me that the issue with many of these choices is that they become absolutist rather than relative and flexible.

For example, my daughter is vegan - on the basis of global warming imopact of animal agriculture.

Her argument is very sound - as much warming is a product of animal agriculture as global transportation (source BBC and elsewhere) - and consequently I eat a *largely* vegan diet.

However, we don't see eye-to-eye when I want to do a recipe that requires an egg, and she is flying somewhere on holiday.

Now, I agree that trying is important - and she has a lower carbon footprint than most. But it should be about doing the thing with the next biggest impact (in her case probably not flying), not about the nth degree of slavishly avoiding animal products in e.g. five pound notes or medicine tablet coatings or flown-in blueberries.

We seem to lose a sense of relativity - people will educate you (rightly) about palm oil, but be blind to, mainly, their travel and direct energy consumption.

That said, I have 1000x more time for people that are trying than those who say "well your shoes are leather".

In reply to UKC Gear:

Great article and kudos to the UKC team for running this given the flak that veganism comes in for. I've been vegan for 4 years now and have often struggled to reconcile this with climbing equipment - particularly down jackets and sleeping bags as well as footwear!

I also am saddened by the disparaging comments below. It is odd how veganism is at once derided as being a morally self-righteous position and ridiculed for being beneath the comprehension of 'normal', non-vegan people.

In reply to Deadeye:
I broadly agree. The only thing I'd add is that I'm aware of applying the label of 'being absolutist' to people making choices which I'd personally find quite difficult (ie going vegan), so I tend to try not to. It wouldn't be honest of me to.

At the moment I eat meat and dairy but I don't fly, or haven't done yet at the age of 37. I've half a plan to ration myself to six or twelve flights during my life time and go and see a few places I'd like to. I'm pondering going vegetarian.

I think it helps to not see it as ' A competition to be good' and more as 'Helping one another to be greener', when it comes to talking about the things one can do, and what one another does or doesn't do. It possibly helps stop the 'Well you do this' sentiment from creeping in.

In reply to alexm198:

Agree with all the positive comments generally here. And also with the difficulties re. relative vs absolute arguments. For me, all three arguments for veganism (welfare, ie trying to reduce the total amount of stress and suffering in the world; energy and sustainability; and personal health) stack up so heavily as to make it highly convincing. Don't forget, there is no mass movement yet and most people are truly unaware of the environmental impact of animal agriculture. And anyway, these things take time, social change is a long, slow process; but I think it is gaining some momentum now.

In reply to sg:


I'm aware of the impact and I will not be changing my eating habits.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Can we have a guide to gear for us carnivores please?

In reply to allarms:

For me the moral argument remains the more compelling. I think most people think of it as specious in some way but that seems to hold on to a view that humans are either categorically different from other animals or should freely exercise a moral choice to exploit other species at will. We have to come to a judgement on whether we're special, different and moral or not. I don't think it's reasonable to cling to the idea that the beasts were put on Earth for Man to do with as he wishes.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Released one day early (or maybe just the time difference from California)?

CB

In reply to sg:

Tell that to a lion as it's tearing a wilderbeast to bits.

In reply to sg:

I sometimes think this argument is actually the opposite of what you state - it seems to argue for a separation of Homo sapiens from the rest of nature, rather than its inclusion within it. If it's wrong for us to exploit other animals, then we should do something about that naughty lion.

In reply to Dr.S at work:
A friend of mine now has 2 vegan dogs. I know cats are obligate carnivores, but wasn't sure about dogs. They look fine, but it's only been a couple of months.

In reply to UKC Gear:
Nylon brushes etc, that's too easy. Try finding a vegan mountaineering boot...

In reply to toad:


Pet ownership seems inately selfish to me.

I can't understand how people can be against the idea of animals as food but OK with owning pets and manipulating their behaviour for their own selfish pleasure.

In reply to UKC Gear:
If it's not 'plants have feelings too' then it's the good old appeal to nature fallacy. Since when is something morally acceptable to do just because another animal does it? I don't think anyone would argue forced copulation is 'natural' just because ducks do it.

In reply to robburgundy:


Quite. The process of 'civilisation' is largely that of separating human behaviour from that of other large mammals and recognising this as progress. Somewhat contradictory therefore to justify a stance on the grounds of it being shared with such creatures.

In reply to timjones:


What an extraordinarily unpleasant post. I'm not vegan but consider myself vegetarian. Around eight years ago I came across a bag of bones pooch by the side of a small track. Being "selfish" I picked it up (weighed f*ck all, despite being a quite large dog) and took it home. It looked like an old german shepherd cross of some sort. Female. I spent a few days caring for her and feeding her until I thought she was well enough to take her to a vet. She was not old but around 6 months old. She looked old because of her starvation. My job circumstances didn't really allow for me to care for a (big) dog well, but didn't have it in my heart to abandon her to a shelter (that thing about being responsible for things you rescue I guess - P.G. Wodehouse touched on this a few times). So I adopted her and gave what I thought was a loving home (what did I know - I was being selfish!). To spend as much time with her as I could I gave up a fairly secure and well paid job to work from home for a much lower paid rate, with no job security, sickness, holiday pay, etc . What a bastard eh? She died from a heart attack about six months ago, at night, in my arms. I thought I was getting over it until I read your post. Completed in tears. I'm sure your having a good old chortle at the sad selfish bitch being upset at this.

In reply to Helen Bach:
Oh come on is it so unpleasant to be struck by the paradox?

If it's OK to think it's wrong to eat meat why is it unpleasant to question the ethics of owning pets?

And of course I'm not going to "chortle" at you what an extraordinarily unpleasant thing to say!

You did a good thing in rescuing and caring for the dog but let's not overlook the fact that the fact that she was abandoned and suffering was once of the less acceptable by products of man's desire to own pets.

In reply to robburgundy:


How long ago did we evolve to include meat in our diet?

I struggle to see how anyone can make a credible claim that it's anything other than natural to eat meat.

In reply to timjones:

Thanks for your empathy. You are a real star. Have a nice life.


This is you is it not (answer - yes). Nice hypocrisy.

https://www.facebook.com/tim.jones.56808

In reply to Helen Bach:


Do you always turn nasty and spiteful if someone doesn't share your view of the world?

In reply to john arran:


The problem is that we will always struggle to reach a consensus on what civilisation is and just how far we should subvert our own nature in pursuit of lofty ideals.

In reply to Helen Bach:

Where is the hypocrisy?

Or do I just fail to share your ideals?

In reply to timjones:

By asking you to have a "nice life?". I'm not going to reply to any further of your frothings, so feel free to have the last word. I am sure will. Have an even nicer life. Or not. Your choice.

BTW: previous post above edited. Bit of hypocrisy if your FB profile is anything to be believed. Although it does explain your antipathy to vegans. Anyone who doesn't support your business of making money by killing animals is (I guess) "nasty and spiteful" - FFS.

In reply to Helen Bach:


Not edited so much as completed in 2 attempts due to big thumbs hitting post at the wrong moment.

I hope you can appreciate that I did not alter or remove anything. I merely compelted the post.

I'm sorry if I offended my original post was a general musing on what we find acceptable. It mentioned no names and was not intended as a personal attack on anyone.

In reply to Helen Bach:


Who is editing posts now

If have no issue with vegetarians or vegans until they start making personal attacks because I don't share their views.

It is the personal element that I view as nasty and spiteful.

In reply to robburgundy:

Forced copulation is natural.
Eating people is natural.


The point I was making was that when we apply moral systems to our behaviour we are separating ourselves from 'nature' rather than being part of it.

In reply to Misha:


I've got a pair.of AFS101S if you're desperate and have huge feet

There was a time when just about all mountaineering boots were vegan.

In reply to timjones:
Nobody's debating that it's 'natural' to eat meat, if by 'natural' you mean it's something that occurs in the natural world. To take an ethical position against eating animal products isn't to claim that doing so is unnatural, rather that it's largely unnecessary in the modern age.

To use an extreme example, I would be surprised if many vegans begrudged their prehistoric ancestors for hunting and eating meat where available, since doing so in those circumstances might have meant the difference between surviving and not surviving. But that's no longer the case - a plant based diet is perfectly adequate for modern nutritional needs. There is no evolutionarily selective preference for meat eaters anymore, so the question becomes more of an ethical one.

But on top of that I agree with robburgundy that the argument from nature is a weak one. How would you coherently maintain that eating meat is a natural phenomenon which is fine but rape or coprophagy is a natural phenomenon which is not?

In reply to Misha:

I'm pretty sure those flashy Scarpa Phantom Techs of yours are vegan, Misha!

In reply to alexm198:


We will all draw our lines in different places but I suspect that few would argue that we have greater obligations to our own species than we do to other species

To use a paradox that I'm already being flogged for highlighting elsehwhere on the thread how about household pets?

No-one is going to argue that it is OK to imprison another human in our homes for our own pleasure.

It is always going to be tricky to establish a real logical consensus on civilisation and the morals that underpin it.

In reply to alexm198:

Maybe I should also add that if coprophagy is what I think it is you can fill your boots as far as I'm concerned.

Just hold your breath if I ever meet you

In reply to timjones:

You're lumping together veganism and pet ownership, but they don't have to go hand in hand, do they? That doesn't mean that many vegans don't own pets, quite the contrary I imagine, but in this thread I feel like it's more a discussion about philosophies rather than individual behaviours.

I kind of agree with you about pet ownership, and there's certain types I disagree with: birds in cage I find disgusting and unacceptable, horseriding I'm not too keen on either (mostly the "I'll flog your flanks and put a piece of metal between your teeth" part); I also feel a bit sad about cats that live in an apartment.

Just like with the issue of eating meat, I think we should look at pet ownership under the light of the current situation, ie we're (mostly) not capturing wolves and feral cats in the wild to force them to keep us company, we're usually adopting pets born of animals that have been tamed for thousands of years, so I guess you could say our relationship with them has evolved? (I do oppose the intentional breeding and selling of pets, usually of a supposedly higher standard; as if there weren't already enough dogs and cats out there.)

My two cents

In reply to timjones:

It might be 'natural' to eat meat but I suppose there are arguments that it's no longer necessary and potentially better for the environment and better ethically.

In reply to Deadeye:


That's true. However starting off with veganism (before bolting on other ethics - veganism is not about pollution - it's not a theory of fixing everything and doesn't claim to be) is the best way to achieve the most positive change with a single change (as you and your daughter know about the harms of animal agriculture). Your point about tallow and pill coatings is mostly a strawman - the vast majority of vegans don't kick up a big stink about these things (while they may avoid them or so) - because there are more important things, and the de facto definition of veganism only asks you do 'as most as practicably possible'.

In my own experience, I found it was easier to just commit to being vegan, than to have a wishy washy goal to 'reduce what I eat' (which meant I found myself awkwardly straddling the fence between reducing a lot but not receiving any support because I wasn't a vegan/vegetarian or 'normal', or reducing just a little bit so I was still 'normal' but not really doing anything meaningful).

In reply to Adrien:


Lumping together is probably overstating it a bit

I'm just intrigued by the apparent contradiction highlighted by the decision to feed dogs a vegan diet.

Overall I'm happy to see meat eaters and vegans living side by side and providing it is done ethically leave pet owners to it.

However, having spent my entire life living and working around domesticated animals including cattle, sheep, outdoor pigs, free range chickens, horses dogs and cats I believe strongly in welfare standards underpinned by the 5 freedoms and it is household pet dogs that somehow prick my conscience as much as anything.

One of the main tenets of welfare standards is the freedom to express natural behaviour and to keep a dog that would normally live and hunt as part as part of a pack alone as a pet in a house and beholden to another species for everything from food to access to the space to take a dump seems intensely sad.

It may seem bizarre but whilst I can eat an animal that I have cared for over it's entire life I would not choose to keep a house dog.

Ain't people strange

In reply to Gecko18:


There is a debate to be had and I'm but happy to accept the decision of anyone who unilatwrally decides to give up meat but it would be a sad day of we swt out to control the diet of others.

There are almost certainly far bigger issues to address.

In the meantime any friends who make a show of being vegan can expect exactly the same sort of ribbing as those who declare themselves to be hardcore carnivores

In reply to Timmd:

Without wanting to quote your entire reply - the basic mistake you (and many others) make is that you forget that veganism is not a theory of fixing the whole world. The vegan society here ( https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism ) provides a really great definition of what it is:
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
It's about recognizing that animals have the same desire to live a full life that humans do. We all are able to recognize that cats and dogs are individuals, who feel pain, fear and happiness. We all know what cruelty to a dog is. But somehow because we like certain tastes, it makes it okay to cram animals into cages for maximum profit to eat them. As a result we overlook far worse treatment to farm animals. People would be outraged if a single dog was treated the way millions of pigs are.

Anyway, back to the story. Basically it's all well and good to recognize that there are certain exceptions where it might produce less pollution to use an animal byproduct. But that misses the big picture, with the same argument, I could say that it's more 'environmentally friendly' to use slave labour than robots to make things - because the slaves don't make as much pollution. Clearly that's an absurd argument not even worth having - we don't treat people like that to make a microscopic saving in pollution. That's the same way that vegans view things - we don't treat animals like that to make small savings in other areas - the argument is rejected outright.

In reply to SenzuBean:

A large proportion of pet dogs are treated far worse than any farmed animal. How many dogs live in central heated houses, no fresh air, bare minimum of exercise; no choice when to eat and no freedom to go to the toilet when they need to.

In reply to Gecko18:

You can eat an "environmentally unfriendly" vegan menu just as you can eat a diet that includes meat that is 'better for the environment' than standard diets that are omnivorous or vegan.

This simplistic 'meat bad, vegan good' narrative stifles progress. Palm oil, out of season veggies, exotic fruits and veggies - all carry heavy environmental costs.

Furthermore, veganism still causes suffering - pushing it to where it cannot be seen. A cropped field cannot be biodiverse - and 'pests' are managed by poisons. If you kill 'pests' then the land cannot support higher order animals. Cropped fields are industrial landscapes. In contrast, pastureland can be self-sustaining and highly biodiverse as sheep and cows don't compete with other wildlife as low down in the food pyramid.

In reply to summo:


Are you saying we need to stamp out every instance of cruelty to dogs before turning any attention to the welfare of farm animals?

In reply to john arran:


The wise man should know that we are constantly working on both.

In reply to john arran:


No, never said that. We do strangely think that we treat man's best friend well. But i can't think of a farmed animal that is conditioned to wait x number of hours before it's allowed to go to the toilet. Or isn't allowed fresh air etc..

In reply to summo:


Ah yes, and then we keep the dog pregnant its entire 'planned' lifespan, which is 1-3 years because it's no longer productive enough? We somehow simultaneously deprive it of fresh air and make it live outside without heating? Because cows get to choose which colour grass to eat, and pigs ask for the Thursday special? Chickens and pigs don't live in a literal pile of their own excrement, or are crammed into cages?

It would be funny if illogical arguments like yours that allowed people to absolve themselves of any responsibilities and carry on doing what they know deep down isn't right.

In reply to Shani:



Unfortunately you forget that palm oil, and soya before that is a major food source for farmed animals - and since animal protein is anywhere from 6-10x less efficient than eating vegetable protein - that's a lot of waste. If we were not farming animals, we wouldn't need anywhere near as much deforestation as we do - we'd probably still have a real Amazon rainforest. All the arguments about cropped fields are magnified when those crops are used to feed pigs or chickens - we pay the cost of cropping at least 6 times for every pig we eat, plus the degradation for the land used by the pig itself (which pollutes waterways heavily).
Sheep and cows also require winter feeding in many places, and that means you again pay the cost of cropping. Even if winter is only 2 months, you have to pay much more than that in equivalent crops that could be eaten instead.

It is possible in either case to grow most vegetables without the use of pesticides, and in a sustainable manner. It's not inherent to the idea of growing vegetables.

In reply to SenzuBean:
Agree with most of that. But you're comparing poor pastoralism with environmentally responsible arable farming. You can farm pastorally in a responsible fashion (eg on biodiverse land on flora inedible to humans, and in places you can't crop).

And there will ALWAYS be suffering with any farming method.

In reply to SenzuBean:

-Most cattle never get pregnant, they only get eaten. Not sure which animal you were suggesting lives 1-3years.
-Pigs won't lie in poo, they are quite clean and will establish a poo corner.
-cows unlike some grazers are quite selective in what they eat, that's why they are good for establishiestablishing meadows compared to sheep or horses.
-You don't have to buy hens or eggs that have seen cages, it's a consumers choice.
-Why do animals living outside need heating? Confused? You provide shelter from elements etc..

Animal welfare on farms is far tighter controlled, inspected and regulated than pets. It does of course vary on country etc..

In reply to SenzuBean:
You can graze animals on ground that would be impossible to obtain any meaningful crops from. I'm talking about thin rocky low nutrition soils at a moderate altitude in a challenging climate zone.

To crop this kind of terrain for a modest return would need serious preparation, lots of inputs year in and out.

In reply to SenzuBean:


It sounds like you used to source your meat from some really dodgy sources!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Great to see vegan choices included in UKC reviews.

It used to be a great deal harder to find vegan rockshoes, until Evolve appeared, and now most brands seem to have at least one vegan shoe. I wish they would make more use of the vegan symbol to help with buying decisions on new models. Of course, you can usually tell from the material description, but it would make things easier. It would also make some brands re-consider the glues they were using to meet the standards.

Its also infuriating trying to buy vegan approach or hiking boots. Even when the major materials are synth, you often get trims (of no technical use as far as I can see) of leather or suede, ruling out the entire boot. No, I don't want to buy them and then cut it off (as was advised by a certain outdoor retail assistant!)

I'd like to see synthetic down jackets reviews and peripherals like belaying/ice climbing gloves etc.

Non-wool technical socks could be another good one.

Oh, and snack bars! :P

In reply to summo:


Nice to see this discussion has really moved on and lots of considered responses. Was a bit anxious when I got the standard 'tell that to the lion' response earlier.
However, can't resist biting again... In the situation of uncroppable land vs. grazing animals, I don't see the problem with 'letting it go'. I realise that proper 'rewilding' in this country is pretty problematic because of all the pesky roads and houses and gardens that will break up the large areas of habitat needed to support real top predators but if veganism can regain some land for rewilding then that has to be a plus.
I know farming is an important employer and farmers do play a role in managing our landscapes but, given that 'the land' already supports a tiny fraction of the employment it once did, I really do think it would be worth trying to find a way of repurposing that land, if that makes sense.

In reply to SenzuBean:


Except people aren't outraged are they? Plenty of coverage in how dogs are treated in some parts of the world (and no I'm not just talking about crufts) and the immense cruelty shown - but I sense no great outrage. But then, there is general apathy about so many things.



Do they have a desire to live a a full life? I'm not aware of any evidence (but would be interested to see it) that says they can, despite the fact that they can be sentient and with emotions. Children cannot before a certain age express the desire to live a full life due to lack of brain development and understanding, it is a relatively complex idea. Can we therefore expect animals to have the desire even if they can't express it?

In reply to sg:

I agree with land that can't really provide anything, but if scraps of rough ground can produce some food, then that perhaps means other productive land doesn't need to be so intensively hammered either. It also cuts road miles etc..

Even if you rewild that land needs managing to some degree, cattle are good, but sheep useless as they eat everything and anything.

In reply to sg:

Of course you can let that land go, and miss out on the food production from it. Equally you could hunt on that land and that may be a good solution for much of upland UK, allowing some degree of rewilding.

However the use of arguments by vegans related to the environment or health tends to focus on worse cases of pastoralism and ignore the worst aspects of arable farming - you could rewild lots of arable land as well dont forget

The ethical argument for being vegan is a good one, but there are other approaches to preserving animal welfare in situations when man interacts with non-human species and concepts from FAWC like 'a life worth living' should be more widely known.

In reply to summo:

Yes, understood. I guess I was just referring to the general idea that 'releasing' land that doesn't need to managed - and it would be much more worthwhile in many other parts of the planet than here - is probably a good thing, but I see your point making the most of land and the differences between farmed species.

In reply to Deadeye:


Agree completely and we all have to avoid the temptation to also consider other people as absolutist even when we demonstrate the same behaviour!


This I find interesting, and agree in principle but in reality think that because of the desires and balance in life to do things that do cost more energy/waste and the world we live in (e.g. to get an education), we are constrained by our options and should not discredit the nth degree. Whilst we may all have different views on the nth degree (e.g. I have no problem with animal products in fivers, but am against flown-in (or out of season) blueberries), I think it is important that people do take action at this level, as this can also bring about change. If we don't, we will always find an excuse (the whole, it's ok for me to fly because a) the flight would happen anyway b) they are 'building' a coal fuelled power station in china every week (note old fact no longer true but still often cited) c) I have planted a tree d) my school/work/family needs me to etc).

In reply to Castleman:


Are we talking abut a full life or a long life?

I certainly struggle to believe that they have any conscious desire to live a long life. The world would probably be better off if we weren't so obsessed with the length of our own lives.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Call me thick but what is a vegan climbing shoe??

I thought being a vegan was about diet??

Maybe I'm missing something but this seems abit overkill to be directing your life over the type of shoes you wear because of your eating choices?

Again not meaning to offend just genuinely bemused and curious!

In reply to Euan McKendrick:

Vegans try to not exploit other animals. Lots of (climbing) shoes are made of leather which is skin from dead animals. And in the case of lots of high grade leather it's not just a by product of the meat industry either.

In reply to sg:

Oh ok thanks

In reply to summo:

Kind of the way children are brought up...

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Again you miss the point already made. Meat = pastoral farming and a significant amount of arable farming: most soya is grown to feed animals. Your dreams of cows or pigs grazing is sadly largely out dated. A vegan diet does require arable farming but less land than a meat centred diet.

The worse cases of pastoral farming are the norm, which is why vegans focus on them, and the worse aspects of arable farming apply equally to animal for food systems.

In reply to Flinticus:


Where do your take your information on livestock farming from and how can you state with such confidence that someone else's views are outdated?

Where Livestock are fed supplementary rations these are increasingly based on by-products from industries such as baking, brewing, biofuel production etc. I can't remember when I last purchased a ration that had anything other than by-products in the top 8 ingredients.

Sadly people are led to believe that "the worse cases of pastoral farming are the norm" by the unscrupulous efforts of a few campaign groups who seem to believe that everyone should adopt their ideals.

In reply to Flinticus:

I think it's great the debate that increased awareness of vegan issues has generated. Personally, I think a massive reduction in meat intake to once or twice a week and switching to as responsibly farmed meat as possible for that achieves a large part of the health, environmental and ethical aims of veganism, with the kicker that it's a financial incentive for the better existing producers to improve, rather than a threat to be fought.

The argument remains over whether man should hold dominion over other animals at all, but that's a philosophical argument that no one's equipped to win. I certainly won't argue that veganism is harmful in any way (unless people are trying to make their cats be vegan), I just think more success might be had in the short to medium term in encouraging people to reduce their intake of animal derived products and for higher welfare standards. Paul McCartney's Meat-Free Mondays turned out to be a great idea and something that could be built on.

In reply to timjones:


I also think that a load of this information is heavily America-centric and a lot of the practices employed on American mega-farms are a step change away from what happens here for the most part. The worry is that our standards slip towards that level rather than get ever better.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


It's a compelling thought but I'll be beggared if I can see how this "financial incentive" is going to work.

Whether they are vegan or meat eater the vast majority of consumers are more focused on cheap food than any sort of financial ethics in the supply chain.

There is some depressing research where people were surveyed on their ethics on the way into supermarkets and the contents of their trolleys were examined on the way out. There was very little correlation between the 2 with price being the main driver on what they actually purchased.

In reply to timjones:


The incentive is to prove there's a market for responsibly sourced meat and animal products and people prepared to pay extra for it. Yes there's a long way to go, but we have to try, because things aren't sustainable as they are, environmentally, ethically, or health-wise. It's down to habit, education and gradual change. Working away with colleagues occasionally it amazes me how many of them still think that every single meal should have meat in it somewhere, possibly with the exception of a cheese, rather than ham, sandwich at lunchtime. Meat should be more expensive than it is.


As above, if meat was more expensive and if people were better educated (literally; I think Home Economics should be a compulsory subject), then perhaps people would be more inclined to eat meat-free more often.

In reply to timjones:

I think this may answer some of your own questions: the drive for profits and the fact that most people will not put money where their ethics lie means that, over the long term, the trend will come more to ressemble the worse practices that we see in the US. I do think practice in the UK in general is better than the industrial farms elsewhere with zero-grazing but looking at stats for the UK, they show herd sizes increasing (as smaller farmers exit) and milk production yields higher per cow.

As for 'the unscrupulous efforts of a few campaign groups', is there an unbiased source for information on this issue? I would not give much credence to those groups affiliated to the industry, as profit is largely an unscrupulous force (I know not all the time). So where does one turn?

I have seen first hand the ideal (cows grazing on open pasture, sheep on hills etc) and the nightmare (chicken and turkey industrial farms) of animal food production: my dad and his dad etc. were butchers (not in a factory but running their own shops) and my mum and all the male side of her large family were / are farmers. Maybe I spent too much time in abbatoirs.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Weren't Linda's veggie pies, only meat free on Mondays too?

In reply to Flinticus:


The problem is that it is far more nuanced than that. There are plenty of "chicken and industrial farms" operating to very high standards.

Sadly people will only believe what they want to believe and a few will lap up everything that PETS etc publish and reject everything that might just provide a bit of balance from the other side of the debate.

As for abattoirs, things are changing fast and a modern abattoir is very different to those that I remember from just 20 years ago.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Why focus on meat free meals?

Meat with every meal is achievable if you moderate the quantity.

On the health front there are adjustments to lifestyle that can offset the problems.

We need to look at the whole picture rather than just following the mantra of a few.

You don't seem to have a suggestion for mechanism that would increase the price whilst passing that benefit onto the primary producer.

In reply to timjones:


Because meat isn't essential and people would probably benefit from understanding that a bit better.


I don't understand why that has to be a goal.


There are, but it's an easy win. Even though I have eaten freshly prepared meals for as long as I can remember, I lost just under a stone in eight months with no other change other than cutting out meat six nights a week. It's stayed off too. Obvious, my anecdote doesn't equal data, but I would be very surprised if it wasn't borne out in the majority of cases.


I'm not following a mantra. I'm not vegan, or even vegetarian, and I think I'm approaching it rather pragmatically rather than ideologically.


No I don't, but maybe the answer lies in fewer, less intensive animal farming operations.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Many things are non-essential but does that give anyone the right to preach to others


You're the one proposing the goal, I'm merely proposing a different means of achieving your goal that may be more acceptable to some people


So how about those of us who don't need to lose weight, can we carry on as before please


That's the beauty of personal choice.

I chose to limit my cheese comsumption by eating less cheese of a higher quality. My choice and not something that I would ever consider impose on others.

We can each do as we please but you need to come up with strong sound reasoning to sell it to others.


But postulation is no answer without a realistic means of achieving a proven benefit.

In reply to timjones:


How are these identified and how would their product be distinguished from other sources? Who provides verification? Necessary when we don't have an immediate relationship with the farmer / producer. I buy eggs and, in trying to ensure the highest standard, buy organic free range, (6 for a good deal less than a pint) unless I happen across a real cottage 'outlet', with hens blatantly roaming free, which I do in my travels to the hills.

Sadly people will only believe what they want to believe and a few will lap up everything that PETS etc publish and reject everything that might just provide a bit of balance from the other side of the debate.

But in a polarised debate, who provides the balance? There's distrust on all sides.

As for abattoirs, things are changing fast and a modern abattoir is very different to those that I remember from just 20 years ago.

I hope so, but I will not go back to eating meat (unless it's a life or death situation, for me!). I haven't for a long time and note no ill effects!

In reply to timjones:


Depends if they're non-essential and unsustainable.


Great. I'm all for it. But isn't it symptomatic of a slightly strange attitude to a particular foodstuff that the thought of not having it with every meal is too much for some people to handle. Can't think of any other foodstuff that requires such special treatment.


I was responding to your comment on health. That's only one aspect of why reduced meat consumption is a good thing.


No one's imposing anything, but if something is unsustainable then it's a good thing to try and persuade people to get it too a sustainable level. If that fails then regulation, imposition, or legislation might be the next step. It's happening (too slowly) with fossil fuels.


Meat production contributes hugely to greenhouse gas emissions, plus our populations are getting ever fatter and less healthy. Reducing meat consumption will definitely assist in the former and will almost definitely assist in the latter.

What's your position? Do you think things are sustainable as they are and if not how would you propose to make them so?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Climbing, climbing equipment and travel related to?


See above.

In reply to summo:

Depends if you're talking four guys in an estate doing a 300 mile round trip in the UK, or jetting off to other countries multiple times each year. Reducing meat consumption is akin to cutting out Kalymnos trips 3, 4 and 5 and going to the Roaches instead.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Octavia? Or electric hybrid?

My point is climbing is really as essential as eating large quantities of meat. But it's something many of us enjoy. Each to their own in sensible moderation.

In reply to UKC Gear:

How did an interesting and thoughtful article on climbing equipment that might appeal to vegan's turn into this spiteful stream of consciousness?

I enjoyed the article UKC - its useful. Thank you for producing it.

In reply to Pawthos:

It because there was nothing on gluten free climbing gear. Surely you must know that most UKCers are intolerant?

In reply to Pawthos:


"Spiteous stream of conciousness"?

There is a lot of good, polite and interesting debate going on.

All the best conversatioms evolve, the thread would be pretty boring in wereply still talking about synthetic shoes.

In reply to timjones:

No doubt I'll regret it but I'm happy to wade back in here as one of the misguided snowflakes. For many people there is no benefit to veganism, in a similar way to there being no obvious benefit to improved human rights in non-freedom-loving-nations around the world.

The 'proven benefit' though, is to the lives of the never-to-be-born farmed animals who avoid a life of stress. A big part of me is now fully signed up to the view that non human farmed animals are the ultimate voiceless community and their miserable lives are played out with zero dignity to be ended in a concrete shed for the next piece of cheese or meat. Most people naturally respond to animals with empathy because, although they are not human, we recognise in them many of the same qualities we possess.

And most people will respond to the concept of anti-speciesism with the typically glib 'try telling that to the lion' and, in doing so, will miss most of the point, IMHO. I'm fully accepting of all Darwinian notions of fitness and if we wish to judge ourselves by no higher standards then fine but to, on the one hand, claim something greater which as a species humans are want to do, is to throw that same superiority away with the routine exploitation which is inherent in farming, and, it has to be said the other ways in which we use animals.

If you're looking for the Dislike button, it's the one in the middle, bottom right (that's a general comment BTW, not aimed at anyone in particular!).

In reply to timjones:


I agree with that, and I think it's been a pretty good discussion, all things considered. Nothing too spiteful; hope I won't be proved wrong yet!

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

To call all meat a single foodstuff is rather like calling all vegetables a single foodstuff

Beyond that maybe I should ask why you think it is unsustainable?

In reply to sg:


I can quite easily respect that opinion but I'm never going to agree with it

Possibly this stems from the fact that I don't hold the belief that pur species is greater or better, we are just part of an ecosystem and possibly the ability to overthink things is more of a handicap than a benefit.

It is hard to feel superior when every winter you find your cows waiting at the gate to be let into the shed where they will spend the next few months lying on a nice straw bed whilst you rush around in the rain waiting on them.

Symbiosis is a great leveller, especially when you suspect that the other species may just have the better end of the deal

In reply to timjones:


Blimey the autocorrect on this phone is whacky!


Apologies for the spelling and grammar, it is honestly not entirely down to me

In reply to alx:

And surely you know that people are not intelerant to glutein. But in fact have a slight genetic flaw and by EU specs are in effect mildly disabled (sadly not enough to receive a handicap parking permit).

In reply to timjones:


Not quite what I meant, but okay, people will think nothing of having a meal without vegetables. Meat and pasta, meat and rice, meat and bread. But it's still inconceivable to some people to have certainly an evening meal with no meat.


It's a major contributor to greenhouse emissions and should therefore urgently be reduced, just like all the other major contributors to greenhouse emissions. Do you think it should be exempt, because people (especially in developed countries) don't like to have any meat-free meals?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Is now the time to post this link from Psychology Today?

"Vegetarian diets are correlated with an increase in mental health problems"

https://t.co/bcqGAErHpF

In reply to sg:

This pre-supposes that those lives are totally encompassed by stress, and have no inherent worth. The pigs playing in the woods near me appear to have a pretty good life, in some ways equal to that of wild pigs, in others worse, and in some better.

The lambs in the fields look pretty happy to be alive right now - I appreciate that their lives may be short, but I dont accept that they will be entierly brutish.

The twenty year old beef suckler cows I used to TB test on the Isle of Purbeck, and in the New Forest, seemed pretty content. I'd go as far as to suggest that most UK Red Meat has lead a reasonable to good life, and has a respectful death.

I'm fully aware that there are some dreadful animal abuses in agriculture, and those should be eliminated. I would not want to be a dairy cow chucking out 14,000 litres of milk a year, nor a chicken in a cage - we can do better than that, and frequently do.

In reply to Shani:


Could be. Only I'm not advocating a vegetarian or vegan diet. I'm advocating eating less meat and dairy and improving the welfare standards and environmental standards of the meat that we do eat and making meat become more like the luxury/treat it once was.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Looks like our views overlap considerably; i advocate and (usually) buy meat sourced ethically and raised in sympathy with the environment (The Real Meat Company, Sheffield). I also advocate eating the whole animal including organ meat and making bone broth.

Ironically, perhaps my biggest failing is out-of-season fruit and veg. I'm sure the ghost acres, carbon footprint/airmiles generally are higher where it concerns the vegetarian part of my diet. I aim for some seasonal emphasis but exotic fare is apoealing

Most vegetarians i know eat a lot of cheese, pasta and milk - stuff i dont really care for. It's hard to give up fruit and veg.

In reply to Shani:

Along with the author of that article, I'd quite happily accept that there could be a correlation there and, at the same time, recognise that this is highly unlikely to be a causal relationship. Put more simply, vegetarians might well be more (reflective / neurotic / delete as applicable). I'd posit that the average human is much less reflective / anxious in general and therefore less prone to either mental disorders or vegetarianism.

In reply to timjones:
-- Possibly this stems from the fact that I don't hold the belief that pur species is greater or better, we are just part of an ecosystem and possibly the ability to overthink things is more of a handicap than a benefit.

Quite so, but our legal systems and moral frameworks the world over are going to struggle to cope with that idea that we are just as lacking in autonomy as the beasts we farm. If we accept that we are being manipulated by our symbiotic partners just as much as we manipulate them then we need to re-think our concepts of self-determination and rights pretty quickly.

-- It is hard to feel superior when every winter you find your cows waiting at the gate to be let into the shed where they will spend the next few months lying on a nice straw bed whilst you rush around in the rain waiting on them. Symbiosis is a great leveller, especially when you suspect that the other species may just have the better end of the deal

You may wish you could share the straw bed with your cattle but they don't have a choice do they, and that's the point. However capable of self-determination they may or many not be and whatever their level of self-awareness is, they are never granted such by their human masters.
I recognise your tongue in cheek and it's fine to see us as all just wrapped in an ecosystem and maybe our genes make us farm them but, to go back to the point I didn't explicate fully way higher up the thread, we can't have it both ways.
One of the ways in which farming has become so easy and 'natural' for us is, of course, the very fact that they are, in many senses, 'our' animals. No cow, pig, chicken etc. would be alive today but for our selective breeding - they are the unthinking, docile and hapless products of our manipulation over thousands of years. At least they experience less stress than a buffalo would if you tried to corral it - because we've bred them to it.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


-- I accept that attributing a value to the life of any animal, including a human, is ultimately fraught and subjective. The principle remains that keeping animals in confined conditions with no opportunity to breed and use their natural behaviours is, arguably, to deny them basic rights. I've already made some points about this in my last reply to Tim.

I'm fully aware that there are some dreadful animal abuses in agriculture, and those should be eliminated. I would not want to be a dairy cow chucking out 14,000 litres of milk a year, nor a chicken in a cage - we can do better than that, and frequently do.

-- Maybe so, but I've come to the conclusion that, after years of worrying in abstract and ill-defined ways - like most people - about how to reduce pain and suffering the world, the simplest and most effective way by far is to opt out of animal agriculture. We're clearly kidding ourselves if we believe that, on a global scale, farm animals have a good run of it. No doubt the lambs at play frolic happily - demonstrating some latent, pre-selective breeding behaviours in their early ontogeny, I'm sure. But farmed animals cannot live any life other than the one we've bred and kept them for and that's become my kind of moral endpoint, I'm afraid.

In reply to sg:
>Maybe so, but I've come to the conclusion that, after years of worrying in abstract and ill-defined ways - like most >people - about how to reduce pain and suffering the world,

I fear most people do not do this, I salute you for doing so.


The lives of farmed animals are pretty varied, as is the degree of discretion they have over their activities* , depending on the farming system in place.
Crate Veal - terrible.
Cows bimbling about on the New Forest - a very high degree of autonomy. On a day to day basis how does the life of a free roaming cow differ from that of a deer?

By the way have you read Bete by Adam Roberts? - interesting take on things.

*heroically sidestepping any discussion of free will.

In reply to sg:

You seem to be suggesting that other species have no autonomy and that the fact that we do makes us superior in some way?

We are just one of many species!

As for the cows on their straw bed having a choice, I'd love to see you trying to stop them entering the shed when the weather turns cold and wet in the Autumn

In reply to sg:


What of the flora and fauna poisoned by pesticides and herbicides used on arable land? What of the starvation of animals who would otherwise predate on these bugs we chemically control? What of the habitat loss due to the plough?

Again, the killing and suffering is pushed to where it cannot be seen, but it is still there veg*an or not.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


This is where it has the potential to get nasty

You have made a choice, others have made different choices.

Why are you so obsessed with denigrating other peoples choices?


For crying out loud you can reduce consumption withough having the meat free meals that you are so obsessed with!

Strangely there is a compelling argument that says that intensively raised meat is greener in this respect as shorter lives and more efficient feed utilisation reduce emissions.

Are those who proudly profess that they eat less meat from more ethical, extensive farming systems helping as much as they would like to believe?

This is a complex issue and we almost certainly lack a full understanding of it, to focus on just one area is absurd.

In reply to UKC Gear:

How can you tell if someone is vegan?

Don't worry they'll soon tell you!

In reply to timjones:

Ooh, don't be nasty. Either I'm not being clear enough or you're misrepresenting my argument. It's probably the former to be fair.


No obsession. If people want to have ever smaller amounts of meat in their food, so they can have it every meal and still reduce their consumption then that's great. Personally, I'd prefer a big f*ck off piece of lamb once a week and eat veggie the rest, but horses for courses. Mmmm, horses...


That argument only really works if you're keeping the number of animals per year the same, surely? If you're producing beef three times quicker than a less intensive operation you'd have to be talking herds a third of the size, or a third of the farms. There's a balancing act with welfare there of course. However, it's an interesting avenue.


Definitely complex. I'm? only focussing on meat consumption as the thread is (or has become) about veganism.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


There are many ways to skin a cat, if the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions it's worth noting that pigs and poultry aren't renowned for farting

Pork and poultry may also go some way towards ameliorating the concerns of some of the people who worry about the area of crops required to produce meat due to the fact that they tend to have better food conversions ratios, but a switch to intensively farmed pig or poultry meat will do little for many who are motivated by animal welfare concern.

It's a complex area and I wonder if it possible to reach a broadly held consensus of what action should be taken.

This thread is interesting because there are good contributions from a range of smart people who are clearly thinking about the consequences of their actions and modifying them to some degree. However, it would ne hard to pick out any 2 contributors who have reached the same conclusions for the same reasons.

In reply to timjones:
Broadly speaking, 'natural ecosystems' are self sustaining. We need to develop farming systems based upon natural ecosystems. Natural ecosystems inherently accommodate herbivores (at least in the UK) - which in turn sustain apex predators. That's where we come in....

I don't want to oversimplify, but in principle, complex systems in our climate lead to systems that allow and indeed necessitate meat eating as a control on herbivores.

Jusy saying "go veg*n" is an oversimplification. But we need to vote with our money, and seek out and support sympathetic farming practice - driving production towards the desired model.


EDIT: A timely article. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/nature/2017/04/dead-zone-why-intensive-...

In reply to timjones:


Back for one more bite - if I feel bold enough to talk about autonomy and self-determination then, on the contrary. I think non human animals do have autonomy, except for the ones in farms and zoos and wherever else humans keep them. They have no rights.

The argument is, obviously, predicated on some conception of rights. As I've already said, I'll happily stop talking about that, if humans as a species are happy to do away with them and settle for a Darwinian dystopia where there's no autonomy for anything but, of course, human society would really struggle with that.

In reply to Shani:


I couldn't agree more; humans have found many different ways to trash / exploit the planet. And again you could just say that's good old natural selection - but I don't think you would, from what else you say.

The sustainability argument about veganism is a simple matter of physics really - entropy. All that hard won energy that photosynthesis converts is frittered away by cows and chickens wandering around in the open and having a better life. One partial solution is to stop them wandering around (farm them intensively, make them into the most efficient meat and dairy factories we can); the other is to not bother eating them and massively reduce the energy waste. I've read many nuances around these basic equations, including some further up this thread, but, to my undernourished brain at least, they seem singularly uncompelling when weighed against the obvious.

Tim's comment higher up is dead right - it is an interesting thread because there are multiple arguments and some individuals are more grounded in one than another. But, at the risk of repeating myself (and of course, we all find our own arguments more appealing than anyone else's!), the totality of the argument for veganism is hard to ignore for me, and further to that, I honestly think it's just possible that there will be a time, in say 100 or 200 years, when we look back and wonder what we were doing, in the same way we look back at slavery or universal suffrage. Of course, on that point, I suspect I'll be wholly wrong but this my pitch in the social change that lies ahead!

In reply to Rob Powell LC&CC:


I am!

I didn't do it to save the planet and I don't knit my own sandals. I gave up eating meat, and then dairy and all the other stuff primarily to control my weight to keep up my climbing grades and live a long and healthy life enjoying them.
I've never eaten or felt so well in my life. How's that for uninvited telling?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I'm not so sure about this, Peter Singer, Australia's famous animal rights philosopher and now renowned ethicist hasn't really been able to do much that is very convincing in 5 decades of trying.

It's not even clear if morality applies to animals at all, because they're rules for inter-human interaction. Similar to environmental ethics, it's applying ethic like behaviour to non-ethical questions.

It's no guarantee as to how we treat humans either, as the current cases of Vealgilantism(tm) in India demonstrate:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-afte...

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

But...... bacon!?

In reply to Rob Powell LC&CC:


Bacon is the test...just how committed are you to your chosen sport???

PS then I gave up alcohol....

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


Ye Gods, that takes things too far!

In reply to winhill:

Morality applies to what we choose it to apply to.
Unless you believe in some higher authority of course.

In reply to sg:
I'm still curious about the moral aspect of your argument. Its likely in a Vegan world we would have less animals.

If a animal is reared for meat or milk, and has a good life along the way is that not a good thing compared to no life at all?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Even as a farmer I find it hard to subscribe to that theory.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


I gave up veg*nism and went BACK to eating meat for the same reason (although not explicitly for climbing)!

In reply to sg:


Simon Amstell's 'Carnage' film is worth a look regarding this (and the thread as a whole). Should be on iPlayer for the forseeable future:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p04sh6zg/simon-amstell-carnage

It's a bit facetious, but raises some good points. Might be worth warning that Timjones might find it a bit blunt, considering the impression of caring animal husbandry from him on the thread thus far.

In reply to timjones:
Really? So what do you think of concepts like "a life worth living"and "a good life" in the context of farm animal (or any animal including us)?
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3...
See page 13 on

What's the veg*n position on rescue dogs, guide dogs, sheep dogs and police dogs? What about the essential companionship a cat may give an elderly single person?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Well basically yes, I'd say it's a good thing because they're not being subjected to a life a they're not evolved to. Again, I'm happy to be accused by someone of missing the point. But a big part of the sustainability argument is precisely that there should be fewer big animals wandering around.

Morally well, who would want to have a child if they knew it would spend it's whole life living in a cage or a barn or have a chance to procreate?

In reply to Removed UserBwox:


Interesting! Only watched the first few minutes and it's certainly an intriguing proposition as well as quite amusing - lots of snowflakes in there. I can't work out which character I'd be and I'm not sure those funny purple and gold bits would suit me! Will try and catch the rest some time.

In reply to winhill:


It's true that Peter Singer hasn't become universally popular but surely it's in the nature of ethical philosophy that the mainstream acceptance of any set of values is, at least partly, an outcome of the wider social mores of the time.

And whether one is applying a strictly moral argument, as in - should non-human animals be the subject of morality - or not, the simple fact remains that not keeping animals for human use reduces pain and suffering. I'm not too worried about the application of moral judgements to other animals, just the obvious and undeniable stress and fear that they are subject to, in my view unnecessarily. We can go back to the lion and the wildebeest as often as anyone likes but I'm happy that that's a different thing.

In reply to Shani:


I've always felt we should leave that kind of thing to the K*reans

In reply to Shani:


Well, from an absolute viewpoint, you'd have to argue against them. Tim did that higher up the thread and it was, understandably, not very popular.

There is, of course, the very clear fact that dogs (more than any other species probably) have been bred to fit around us. They're man's best friend because they've been bred to be in tune with whatever it is that we want from them and to act in willing acceptance of that (well perhaps more so pugs than huskies say!). Pet dogs that don't come up to muster in terms of the particular winning combination of traits tend to be labelled as having behavioural problems and find their way to the pound, but most of them don't have any 'natural behaviours' left. The exploitation of dogs comes less in the manner of their lives as the manner of their breeding. In terms of the pain and suffering argument it's harder to run because, for many pet dogs, their lives are lived in plain sight of their human masters who empathise fully with them. They don't spend any time in cattle trucks or milking sheds and some of them even get to breed.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


To be fair, I found nothing more refreshing than visiting China twenty years ago where there really wasn't much equivocation or inconsistency. No animal was afforded any rights at all, however big or small. And then of course, most of the humans had / have a pretty severe curtailment of their rights too. Totally different perspective and made me think plenty.

In reply to sg:


That should say no chance to procreate, of course. I've lost an edit button somewhere...

In reply to SenzuBean:
Good point about Veganism not being an approach to try and save the world.

In a respectful way (since I do have vegan friends - one of whom uses down products as it happens ), I genuinely can't see why a vegan couldn't use down, though, if the thing which bothers them is animals having their will infringed upon, because using something which comes from the animal after it's already dead, and which wasn't the reason it was killed, isn't in itself a human being imposing their will upon an animal with obtaining the down as the reason for this, they're just using it's down to keep warm.

If respecting the sentient nature of animals is a practical approach in not eating them, or making them do things to obtain milk etc from them, as far as the person who is wearing the down goes, they seem to me in a practical sense to not be party in the will of humans being imposed on ducks or geese.

Do you see what I mean?

In reply to sg:

Thanks for the reply.

In reply to Timmd:

I think the problem is that not all down is simply a by-product. A lot of the premium stuff, I think, like leather, is selected. There are companies that have ethical sourcing policies but I'm not sure there's an established standard. The really best down isn't the same as a few wing feathers from an old goose. I'm sure some of the top mountain brands may source ethically but I don't suppose that's the only reason their jackets need a mortgage to buy!

In reply to sg:
Doesn't that then make it up to the buyer to make sure they buy down which 'is' ethically sourced?

Mountain Equipment seem to make sure they use ethical down.

In reply to Timmd:

Of course, although from my perspective it would be good if down was only ever by-product and then in my utopian future there'd be no down at all except that collected from dead wild animals because there'd be no farmed animals (smiley face).

Mountain Equipment seem to make sure they use ethical down.
That's good - I hope that was the case 25 years ago when I bought my only ever down product, my sleeping bag which is still going strong and is as warm as ever.

In reply to sg:


I can see part of the environmental argument, but I was asking about the moral.

If you think that all farm animals in the UK live in cages or barns, and do not get a chance to procreate then you do not have a clear view of the situation.

Consider traditinal Beef breeds, 'finished' on grass - even the 'slaughter' generation is likely to have 2-3 years of good quality life, and breeding stock may live for 10-20 years, with many opportunities to express normal behaviour.

In reply to sg:


I'm not sure why natural behaviours are important. many natural behaviours are bloody unpleasent - see upthread foir examples.

As for the pain and suffering argument, i'm afraid you are quite wrong - many breeds of dogs - especially Pugs and similar breeds have been bred into constant suffering. I'd far prefer to be a beef cow than a pug.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


You're dead right about pugs - my point was about them being bred to their servile acceptance. The point about about the expression of natural behaviours is that they are a part of any organism's self-determination and not the result of human exploitation.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

I guess natural behaviour is important, because of the idea that animals might feel constrained if unable to exhibit natural behaviour?

It seems like a logical thing for a vegan (or a kind person) to be concerned about to me.

In reply to Timmd:

But if your 'natural behaviours' have been changed by millennia of breeding to 'un-natural' ones, as is the case with dogs, then why would the animal in question miss the 'natural' behaviours?

Its the current set of desires/needs that need satisfying, not those of a wolf.

In reply to sg:

So your principal objection is to choice theft?

If so then Shani's points about the impact of arable farming on other species are very significant.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


Yes really!

Consider what you wrote?

Where is the logic in that statement?

I support the maintenance of high standards for the animals that we farm.

I also believe that there are many valid reasons for livestock farming.

But I find the line of reasoning that "If a animal is reared for meat or milk, and has a good life along the way is that not a good thing compared to no life at all?" illogical.

I would be embarrassed to use that line of reasoning with anyone and it would be especially embarrassing with a vegan who has carefully considered the matter before arriving at their chosen ethical stance.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:


Sadly I'm unlikely find it a bit blunt as the chances of me ever watching anything with Simon Amstell in it are a big fat zero.

He takes intensely irritating to a whole new level

In reply to sg:


Over the years I've lived and/or worked with cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, dogs, cats and miscellaneous small mammals that are kept as pets.

In my experience even the best kept of house dogs have quite clearly been the species that are least adapted to their domesticated lives and the ones that show by far the most "yearning" for a more "natural" life.

Before anyone jumps down my throat this isn't a criticism of anyone else's choices or even a suggestion that we should ban pet keeping. It is merely a personal statement I find the keeping of pet dogs to be a significant ethical dilemma.

In reply to timjones:


If it makes any difference, he doesn't actually appear on-camera. He just wrote it, and does the narration bits.

In reply to sg:


As far as I understand it, you've got this back to front and in fact the first dogs sought out humans for scraps and waste food and are the definition of a social parasite, i.e. they adapted their behaviour to become accepted by humans and receive the benefit of relative safety, comfort and food security. They've thrived as a result.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:


I tried, I never managed to get through the first minute

I don't understand how anyones vocal style can set my teeth on edge so easily.

I'm fine with the sound of fingernails on a blackboard and just about all of those sounds that are alleged to grate with people, but that voice and style of delivery.

I don't understand why, but it's the one sound that makes me want to scream.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


This is similar to my question above about animals that perform a service either passively (like cats, for companionship), or working dogs (mountain rescue dogs, dogs for the blind, police dogs etc...). It is a symbiotic relationship of mutual benefit.

In reply to Shani:


I think all of them are fine, I feel sorry for all the horses stuck in fields on their own and the best they can hope for is an hour's escape on weekend etc..

In reply to timjones:


OK - as someone who had a pet dog as a boy and has a re homed cat now but no other experience of living with animals I respect your greater insight. Interesting that you have more difficulties than with the cows etc

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Like I said - for some animals it's as much about their exploitation through breeding. I do still think any kept has its ability to express it's preferred behaviour severely restricted. It's much easier to simply see it as a master slave relationship in some ways.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle and Shani:
I tried to address this when Tim used the word symbiosis higher up. On the one hand you could say I'm trying to have my cake and eat it by running more than one thread to the argument but I'd say most of humanity is. Symbiosis is a great concept from biological science which I think I understand pretty well. For humans to describe all their behavioural, cultural and legal frameworks purely in Darwinian terms then fine. As organisms, we are indeed all being exploited by our genes and the genes of everything else in the ecosystem all the time and I'll simply say that, because of how I've been brought up I'd rather reduce the amount of pain and suffering I cause, but accept that my position is illogical. But human society doesn't work like that because the concept of rights is fundamental to many areas of discourse and most people seem to want to extend them, in some inconsistent way, to animals.

I do take the point about early dogs manipulating humans but once animals become kept we are clearly limiting their abilities of self expression. Selective breeding is a type of exploitation, by definition. Many nonhuman animals that live around humans may have an ok time of it but, as a matter of principle, I think what I've said just about holds water!

I am getting a bit argument-fatigued though and am not used to this level of ukc engagement having always been more of a lurker than a poster! I respect the resilience and commitment shown by many of you who are more seasoned in the art! I'm beginning to wish I didn't care about the poor, defenceless animals but I can't help it (tongue in cheek).

In reply to Dr.S at work:

Woops, one more thing

This is just the entropy / land use argument I referred to above. No doubt lots of arable practice trashes the environment. But if we will insist on giving half our produce (or however much it is), to those pesky cows and pigs we'll have to stay pretty intensive until we can get our own population size down. From the planet's point of view we're already way above carrying capacity!

In reply to sg:

It's good that people are discussing these things and taking action.

I'm no longer veg*n, but I've lost none of my drive for ethical and environmental consideration of how i live.

None of us is perfect. Keep fighting the good fight.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I knew this thread would decend into a UKC classic.

In reply to Shani:

Hi Shani, might have missed it in the thread. What made you give up being a v*gan? Did you go back to being a veggie, or all the way to the dark side?

In reply to sg:

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you're saying, but as you've pointed out, we need to be careful when applying human standards to animals with, as far as we know, no capacity for abstract thought and a strong instinct for safety and security of food. It's an obviously 'unnatural' life livestock are given, but then so is ours. Natural can be scary and painful just as unnatural can be secure and comfortable.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

We could discuss it over a pint in The Sheaf, The Greystone, The Banner Cross or The Broadfield.

Long and the short, i was training as a veg*n and thinking how little muscle mass i had for the amount/ kind of training i was doing. I wasn't strong - i was just really light as my muscle mass was so sleight.

This got me thinking, if i was surviving out in a remote place, what kind if food would i eat? How would i be active/train? What kind of lifestyle would it be (no electricity, more sleep in winter than summer etc.....).

This had a profound effect on me. I almost immediately went back on to meat and fat. Emphasised seasonal veg and fruit. Binned all bread and cereals. Started sprinting, barefoot running, skipping breakfast and occasionally fasting....all back in 2007. I'm not low carb, but do cycle my carb intake.

It coincided with the start of the paleo movement (something that has since spun off in to something crazy), but i was enamoured by finding other people who thought along similar lines to me.

Long and short is I'm now single digit body fat (without any effort or calorie counting) -10kg heavier than when vegan. I chin up with 65kg in weights attached. Have 2xbodyweight deadlift. Pretty fit all round.

My UKC posts circa 2007-2010 garnered a lot of hostility and were controversial at the time.

In reply to.

Just one more thing; i appreciate the moral, ethical and environmental considerations most veg*ns apply to their lifestyle.

As a meat eater of similar persuasion, i have tried to build bridges with veg*ns in areas we agree on - animal welfare (up to the point it appears on my plate!), environmental concerns, ghost acres, food miles, seasonality and locovorism etc...

We nedd to unite and tackle thd most egregious excesses of the Western lifestyle, and particularly its farming practices.

In reply to Shani:


Your beloved eu has a lot to answer for there.

In reply to summo:




The change to subsidies post- Brexit and environmental policy in general, are something I'm very intrigued about.

In reply to Shani:

It will be "interesting" but it's worth bearing in mind that in England payments have been decoupled from production for quite a few years now.

In reply to Shani:


Do you think you could have got to this point without going back to animals? Or does it just make things more straightforward?
I'm nowhere near as fit as you, but quite a lot of the animal products I eat I justify on the basis of aiding fitness/training/recovery etc. It does sit a bit heavy on my conscience, however

In reply to nufkin:



Well, that was part of my realization; given the amount of exercise i was doing my physique sucked. I'm way happier with my physique now, which comes as a byproduct of my training and diet. So no, i don't think i could have got to this point without going back to animals (and fat, bone broth, organ meats) - well not without lots of processed veg*n foods (protein powders etc...)

I'm still a 32" waist at 44, and still setting personal bests in strength activities. I cannot believe how amazing this actually is for me as i thought i was passed it. Doubly so when i look at my peers.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It would miss the natural behaviour because that's what it, as an animal, naturally (for far as how it feels goes) wants to do. It doesn't matter if it's ancestors did something different, the animal doesn't know that (as far as we know). It only knows/feels what it wants to do right here in the present. It has no knowledge of what came before it was born.

In reply to Timmd:

Yes, which was my point.

In reply to Shani:


Interesting. I've been impressed by 'public' vegans like Brendan Brazier and Frank Medrano and have wondered if veganism has been for them - and by extension might be for me - a boon, or if it has made getting their fitness levels to where they are harder and/or more complicated. My dilemma is that, if the former, I'd struggle to justify animal products on physiological grounds and moral grounds - I'd like to be able to deadlift twice my bodyweight, but I don't need<i/> to.

I suppose ultimately it's a matter of deciding where I draw my boundaries, balancing the various arguements, and being aware of inconsistencies

In reply to nufkin:
I suspect there is a lot more to Brazier & Medrano's diets - the latter wasn't always vegan and they both sell or promote protein supplements. Most vegans i have ever known never looked jacked. Even those that trained. I'd guess these two are heavily supplementing.

In reply to Dr.S at work:


''I guess natural behaviour is important, because of the idea that animals might feel constrained if unable to exhibit natural behaviour?

It seems like a logical thing for a vegan (or a kind person) to be concerned about to me.''




It was hard to tell.

In reply to Timmd:

IIRC I was replying to SG who was decrying the lack of expression of 'natural' behaviours in farmed species, as those had been in part replaced by un-natural ones.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Is limestone vegan?

In reply to wintertree:

My inner-geologist approves of this question.