That really is revolting. Anyone who says people are meant to eat meat should try a plate of something like that, raw.

Posted by: DaliyVeg Editor | September 12, 2007 12:06 PM

No mystery to an omnivore, this is a semi-thawed piece of poultry. Not much fat here, just delicious uncooked protein. I think my six year old daughter uses the word 'gross' when referring to boys (never meat). I didn't know that was a word adults used when not referring to weight.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 12, 2007 12:15 PM

OMG!! How diiiiisssguuuuuuusssting!!!!

Posted by: Jaclyn | September 12, 2007 02:04 PM

looks like the results from having an abortion, yummy!!!

Posted by: karen | September 12, 2007 04:37 PM

Cochran

Your sarcastic remark is juvenile, now that's just dumb! It actually is rotting flesh, if you want to refer to what "meat" actually is.

Pysicians Committe for Responsible Medicine

Take a look at their website if you really are an MD, I think YOU need a dose of education.

Posted by: Ana | September 12, 2007 04:38 PM

Ana,
The photograph would have to be even closer to asses the microbial load. I suppose your right in that all dead plants and animals headed for the table are in some stage of decomposition. Eating
partially decomposed plants and animals is quite normal. In fact the last time I ate Korean food I ate some rotting cabbage that was delicious. If this happens to be the meat of a free range chicken then I
doubt you could find a better source of healthy protein. On the other hand, healthy debate on what is and isn't most good nutrition is just that debatable. I really am a physician and you can look at all the websites in the world and find any opinion you might like to align yourself with but I would be happy to put my
knowledge of nutrition and human physiology to your scrutiny. In my medical opinion, vegan diets are nutritionally incomplete. My education IS ongoing, thank goodness, as new knowledge becomes available.
I can't understand why herbivore people often buy all the psuedo-meat products. They do look like meat. (totally gross, right?) I know what is in the meat I eat, but I don't have a clue what is in Tofurkey.

I know as an intelligent, well-educated person such as yourself could come up with a better way to get your point across than direct name-calling. I may be juvenile, but I am most certainly not dumb. I look forward to more stimulating conversation.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 12, 2007 06:53 PM

Uh, most of us didn't grow up vegan or vegetarian, Christopher. And I'm guessing most of us still wouldn't have known what the hell that is.

I prefer my "delicious uncooked protein" in bean form, or anything else that won't kill me if I don't cook it first.

Posted by: Canaduck | September 12, 2007 09:37 PM

Cochran,

It's a shame that your 6 year old daughter will apparently not be learning that she can get "delicious uncooked protein" without her parents supporting the incredible suffering and unnecessary slaughter of innocent, sentient beings for which she, as a child, has an inherent affinity (until you destroy it).

Apparently you're an educated person (though putting 'MD' after your name hasn't convinced me), so I'm sure you'll inform your offspring where meat (i.e., the antibiotic- and pesticide-laden corpse of a tortured animal) really comes from and not just rely on what Ronald McDonald tells her.

Posted by: Doug | September 12, 2007 10:38 PM

Why does it look disgusting, when I first saw it I thought it was a fruit!!!

I bet if I put a macro of a fruit up there and said it was beef there would be alot of people saying it was as disgusting as comparing a picture of meat to the aftermath of a traumatic abortion. But then that's been done already I see.

Posted by: Paul | September 13, 2007 09:06 AM

I think that Cochran's response is a good example of the ignorance of the majority of people on meat! I also think that it goes to show if he is indeed a doctor that there are some degrees out there people just should not have. I am lucky enough to have a doctor that is not brain washed by the meat and dairy industry, and supports my choice to be a vegan! Cochran is just a good example of the fact you pick you better pick your doctors wisely!

Posted by: Dana | September 13, 2007 09:25 AM

To all the angry herbivores,

My six year old daughter knows exactly where meat comes from as
she helps us prepare meat from field to table. She cleans fish, dresses dove and quail and
helps me process all the wild game that we are lucky enough to
harvest on my land. Your view of meat seems fairly narrow. Certainly some meats are much more nutritious than others just as some vegetables are better, but I have a hard time
believing all meat is bad. When we eat venison or grass fed beef from our land we know
exactly what went into that meat because it's growing outside our window. I am certainly not anti healthy diet, I just don't believe that a vegan diet is complete.
My family gets all the nutrients they need from their diet alone. Vegans have to take artificial supplements to
complete their diet. Between all the fruits and vegetables that we grow and healthy animal products we use, we aren't missing any nutrients.
We don't have to plan to have complete nutrition.
I understand if all you ever see is meat in the grocery store that you would find that unappetizing. All football players don't have dog pits and all meat isn't bad for you. I completely agree that a vegetarian diet is much healthier than the average American diet. However it is not the healthiest diet as vegans purport.
Dana,
If you are going to resort to name calling, then let me say,
that I have forgotten more about nutrition and human physiology than you will ever know.

Doug,
I must tell you of one of the 'sentients' in my house named Oliver. He is a nine year old
registered, purebred, breeder
bred, labrador retriever that absolutely loves to bring back stuff in his mouth. He will settle for balls or kongs or sticks, but what he really prefers are dead birds. Now I would feel awful if Oliver didn't get to enjoy his passion for retrieving so yesterday we climbed up a hill on my 200 acre habitat restored at much of my own expense farm and we enjoyed an afternoon of dove hunting. Doug, you have never seen so much joy in a dog's face. We will enjoy the fruits of Oliver's labor tonight sans pesticides or antibiotics. I say we, but I may have to 'brainwash' my daughters into letting me have
some.

I never new eating fake meat could make people so grumpy!

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 12:05 PM

The MD makes me wanna scream!!!!!! its this type of ignorance that has lead to what we see on footage like "meet your meat" and as if you put MD after your name ALL the time on this thread for example, its a masters degree! for goodness sake not a licence to be ignorant! so who hasnt had an education the difference is in what we LEARN

Posted by: wend | September 13, 2007 12:20 PM

Again my friends the angry herbivores,

My goal is friendly debate with knowledgeable folks. I don't want to be referred to a website or a movie. Can you defend your stance yourself? I am not aiming at anger, but calling me ignorant and other playground tactics make the prospect of a little ribbing irresistible.

Wend,
I am not lucky enough to have a Masters degree. I have only been able to swing a Doctoral degree to this point.

And while we are on the subject of ignorance,

Have any of you ever been to an abatior? I have.
Have you ever butchered an animal? I have.
Have you ever restored wildlife habitat with your own
hands? Or delivered a baby calf? Put to sleep a suffering animal? I have.
My point is that I just wish you all could gain more life experiences so that you could form your own opinions rather than glean them from films and
other medial with biased agendas. If I learned all my knowledge of the outdoors from hunting shows I would be an ignorant idiot. Don't be the same from the opposite perspective.

All the best to everyone. No screaming please.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 01:04 PM

You know, I kind of find it funny that anyone would defend killing animals when they're visiting an organization's website that is devoted to protecting them. You know if Cochran (or I'm Too Cocky For Myself) can't see past his own beliefs, then the man isn't the kind of guy you argue with. Arguing gets you nowhere. I've done much more research on the subject of animals in diet than that man could ever dare to forget and so have several of the people who read this blog. I can't ever imagine being pursuaded into that viewpoint, into the idea that it's justified somehow to take the life of something else that operates in the same fashion as myself, and thats why I'm a proud supporter of animal rights at every level. I would just let Dr Death To All Things become totally misconstrued about what's right and wrong. He's a dying breed himself and is just clinging to his last breath of life before the next generation takes over and makes people who think like him, totally extinct. Besides, for anyone who could say that they've done the research on the vegan diet and concluded it's nutritionally defunct hasn't done research at all. The only thing a vegan is said to be lacking is vitamin complex B12, which if he had done the research, he would actually know that it's found in things like kale and some seaweeds and that a vegan needs no supplement at all. If anything, a meat eater's diet is one of nutrition gone missing. No fiber in meat, no vitamins, only source of food-bourne cholesterol, high levels of harmful and poisonus chemicals that continue through generations because of a hereditary factor; low minerals per gram parts; high levels of unnessecary hormones; high levels of unearthly deadly viral strands; even higher levels of fat; too much protein which in turn causes later health problems; high levels of carcinigens; and of course high levels of the chemicals that induce fear hatred and insanity among animals before they are sent to death. Yummy Dr Cochran. Yummy. Yummy. The only thing I'm thankful for about our system of laws today is that it's illegal to eat other humans cause guys like Cocky would be the first on the list to Cannibalism, I am sure. Read a book there buddy. Then come back and try to defend your viewpoint on a website devoted to protecting animals. Let's see how far you get!!!

Posted by: Brian Luznak Not An MD | September 13, 2007 01:44 PM

Dear Dr. Cochran:

Big deal. You've delivered & butchered animals. (Ever revive a dead man with your "bare hands"?) Congrads, you've done it all. You miss the point of human life, tho': ACTS OF COMPASSION. I'm not surprised that you claim no familiarity with the PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine). Machiavelli would be proud.

Posted by: David Schachne | September 13, 2007 02:05 PM

Hi. Dr. Cochrane.
I am not a vegan or vegetarian (though I do love animals and wish often that I could go so far as not eat meat). I was wondering, as an avid hunter and one who lives off of his own land, and one who obviously agrees that a suffering animal should be put to sleep rather than left to suffer, what are your views on euthanizing people who suffer. I know this may totally be off keel of the subject, but I have always wondered if doctors who felt animals in extreme pain that cannot be helped had the same views towards humans, and if so, how does that affect the medical oath?
Respectfully,
Tammy

Posted by: Tammy | September 13, 2007 02:17 PM

Mr Luznak

Obviously something in my opinions have struck a chord in you and now you seem angry. I would never, ever, try to persuade you to live your life differently. Obviously you aren't hurting anyone with your beliefs. The blog owner has chosen not to exclude my opinions, I hope, in an effort
to stimulate intellectual conversation on a topic that we all obviously find very important. My attitude towards anyone is benign, until of course I am attacked with accusations of ignorance, or cruelty, or hick, or redneck, or murderer. You, like many of the other herbivores have given into the
temptation of immature name calling. Is this supposed to make me angry? Making fun of my surname? I don't suppose to know your age or level of education, but your tactic of debate is not effective in defending your opinions. I, of course have read lots of books on both sides of the arguments and I have also for many years studied humans and their habits and diets face to face in my office. I think you would find our opinions on what constitutes a healthy diet is very similar. I do not want you to eat meat. I want you to stop trying to take my meat, my culture, my way of life away from me. You
do nothing to convince me that
my way of living is wrong, you
just call me childish names.
For the record. I have an enormous patch of kale growing in my garden right now. We are omnivores, not carnivores.
The dove I will relish on my table tonight are free of toxins, carcinogens, antibiotics unless they were poisoned in some city, maybe your city.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 02:22 PM

So then do you agree (medically speaking) that the meat that is sold in stores and full of all things artificial is bad for us?

Posted by: Tammy | September 13, 2007 02:35 PM

I am a recent vegetarian (2 years)not because of what does or does not go in the meat, not because it's healthy or unhealthy for my body, not to support peta or piss off meat eaters. I am a vegetarian because the treatment of these animals is INHUMANE!!! No living creature should endure what these animals go through. Most off us treat are cats & dogs like they are part of the family but because a chicken is not considered a domesticated pet that gives us the right as a "civilized" society to overfeed, overcrowd, beat, break bones, refuse medical treatment, transport under extreme conditions, skin alive, dip in boiling water and outright torture this chicken so I can have it for dinner. I do not preach my decsion to anyone I chose to become a vegetarian because I look at my 3 rescued pitbulls and 2 stray cats and say what if they went through that. Because they are a pet and a chicken is not, the chicken is treated cruely somehow that does not seem "ok" to me. I don't need a doctor or educated person who knows what goes in his meat vs. Tofurkey to tell me I am doing the right thing by not contributing to suffering. I guess that is something that each person has to learn on their own.

Posted by: Tracy | September 13, 2007 02:45 PM

Brain,
I would trust you to be my doctor without a degree far more than I would Cochran with a one!

I think Mr. Cochran with the fake MD if you would read my post you might have realized that I was not name calling at all just pointing out your ignorance on the meat you eat.

When making the statement:
"I have forgotten more about nutrition and human physiology than you will ever know."

Out of everything you have said that statement make perfect sense to me. It clear to all here that you have either blocked out the things that you learned about meat, because it is a proven fact that people find many ways to justify doing things the enjoy that may be harmful to them. It could also be that you are not a doctor at all, and instead you make a living off some aspect of the meat industry, and you have came here to dispute that eating meat is bad for you. By pretending to be a doctor you think that people will have a false sense of security and believe you over all of us, because after all we are not doctors so what could we possibly know about health.

I find it very sad that your daughter is raised in a household that teaches her she must kill to eat. This will come back and haunt her at some point, and there will only be you to blame. Raising farm animals to kill is also something that children never fully understand no matter how you try and justify it with them. It is a child’s nature to become attached to animals that they are around daily, and it sends a really bad message when the loving animals she has been around becomes the meal on your table. Compassion for animals makes us not only human, but it determines the type of people we will grow up to be, and teaching children that we kill living breathing animals to eat is no different than teaching them to kill living breathing humans. Keep in mind both animals and humans a like feel pain!

Posted by: Dana | September 13, 2007 02:57 PM

Tammy,

I too love animals and nature as indicated in my dedication to wildlife habitat restoration. The love of animals and being an
omnivore are not mutually exclusive.

Human euthanasia, as in going and actively causing someone to die opens a huge can of worms open to lots of abuse. Unlike animals, humans are more specifically able to tell us about pain and suffering. I focus on relieving suffering. As a result, sometimes the things we do to relieve suffering may hasten someone's death. Is this euthanasia? On some level, but I suppose the difference is the philosophy. I am not treating this patient in an effort to kill them, despite being "Dr. Death to All" rather my treatment goal is to alleviate suffering. If the patient's requirements to meet this goal hasten their death then this is what must be done, as a suffering patient, human or animal is untenable.

So do I think it's a good idea for a doctor to go to someone's house and euthanise people with that specific intent? In a perfect world, yes, but doctors are imperfect as some of the previous posts are happy to point out so I believe our current attitude on end of life issues are probably the best we can do right now. Being a euthanist would be ripe for abuse, I am afraid.

For the record, I am perfectly familiar with the PCRM, but they do not speak for all physicians including myself. I agree with a large portion of their views, just not all.

Best Wishes to all.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 03:20 PM

So the ulterior motive comes out. Someone who feels it might be more impressive to add the initials "M.D." after his name is just another hunter trying to justify his kills. Of course he loves and defends meat -- it's what's on his plate after he's blown it away with his big bad shotgun. Oh, but he wouldn't eat his own dog so that makes everything okay. Just another jerk masquerading as an educated human being.

You don't have to be a doctor to know that humans are not superior to animals and that the soybean is the highest and purest form of protein available for human consumption.

Allowing your six year old child to witness and participate in the callous murder of animals is cruel and abusive. Now put down the gun and come along peacefully before you accidentally shoot yourself or your own child.

Posted by: Andi | September 13, 2007 03:37 PM

To: Animal killers.

I do not need to actually butcher an animal to know that it is brutal. Thanks to video technology I can see what goes on in a slaughterhouse without actually having to be there in person. Seeing video footage of the abuse and neglect to which factory-farmed animals are subjected is enough for me - it makes me cry, and I feel nauseous as well. I do not need to be vomiting from directly smelling the smells and hearing the sounds of those poor animals to be convinced that it is wrong.

Vegans would not need to get B12 through supplements or fortified foods if we were still living in an agricultural society. Humans at that time were getting the B12 microorganism from fruits and vegetables because this produce did not need to be scrubbed clean of the dirt that contains the microorganism. I am not going to start eating meat or other animal products again just so I don't have to get my B12 artificially. There are plenty of non-vegans, who are not B12 deficient, but who are obese or otherwise unhealthy.

Meat from animals raised "organically" may be relatively free of hormones and anti-biotics, however it still contains animal protein that causes calcium loss and increases the risk of heart disease. No thanks.

From: someone who is not an MD but who has some background in nutrition, and who is just as capable of doing research as someone with a Masters or Doctorate degree.

Posted by: Michele | September 13, 2007 03:57 PM

Tammy,

If I were forced to eat only the meat products available in the average American supermarket, undoubtedly I would eat a lot less meat.

Again I am not an evangelical omnivore. If you don't want to eat meat, don't. If you don't like broccoli, please don't eat it. I like broccoli. Don't tell me not to chop the heads off those defenseless broccoli plants and devour them raw or steamed. Don't try to take away my right to participate in the food chain. I don't want to be that "human" yet. I enjoy being an animal. It helps remind me of the never ending cycle of life. It helps me feel apart of the Earth beneath my feet. It helps me to know that one day I'll be compost and the grass will grow and deer will eat and I will persevere for eternity. I want to remember who I am and where I came from and I want my children to be able to experience that as well. If you don't share my views, I understand. Our backgrounds are very different. I will never threaten your vegan lifestyle as long as you don't threaten my life as an alpha predator.
And if a lion or tiger or alligator happens to make it to the Ozarks and decides to make a meal out of me, I'll be
very disappointed, but I wont hold it against him when I'm tiger stool. I expect you grass fed folks would be a better meal for him anyway.

And to all my new herbivore friends, I warn you; don't eat yellow snow.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 04:11 PM

Cochran

I too have several advanced degrees but unlike you I do not need to parade it on this website/blog. My compassion for animals is what is of utmost importance. You purport to be a MD, if so, yes, then you are educated but that doesn't mean you can't be "dumb" about other specialties you know nothing of. I am not one of those people who view doctors in awe; many doctors make fatal mistakes with their patients. In fact, ignoring the advice of one saved my life. Unlike him, I knew that the treatment he prescribed with my symptoms would have resulted in my demise.
Nonetheless, having a MD after your name does not make you any less a killer of animals insensitive to their pain. Being that we are all animals one of the most basic instincts we share is the desire to live, the instinct for survival. They, like us, deserve to live. Humans don't have the right to kill the other animals, humans kill them because they can (with weapons, of course).
As far as eating "psuedo-meat", I don't. I love rice and beans for example and am quite content eating everything else that is not part of a cadaver. It's your arrogance that is most unappealing and bragging about your MD only makes me want to yawn.
Fortunately for me, I am very healthy and my doctors support my vegan lifestyle. They don't raise an arrogant eyebrow such as yours. Calling us "angry herbivores" is just a game you play with semantics in the hopes that we will get angry with you. Not me. I don't respond to arrogance, that's a waste of time.

Just a reminder: THIS IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTS BLOG.

Posted by: Ana | September 13, 2007 04:26 PM

Andi,

Soybeans, like most legumes are rich in protein. Unless cooked, poorly absorbed, however. When eaten with certain grains, corn for example you, almost get a complete protein source.

Exactly how does calling me a jerk help your argument. If I am a jerk, you are a closed minded bigot. Now that we are involved in the name calling game again, I will have to ask my daughter for some pointers as she is in the first grade.

I am not trying to justify anything to you. I am kindly asking you to accept my difference in culture and way of life as not your own and not have so much hate in your life. I know hatred isn't healthy.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 04:48 PM

To all my new friends,

I only point out that I am a physician to hopefully lend some credibility to my expertise. I am not just some guy with an off the cuff opinion. I feel this is necessary when I am referred to as a murderer, hick, redneck, as I don't feel I am any of these things. Nor do I ask for awe or extra respect.
I have no reason to deserve that. I do possess a certain level of expertise regarding biology especially human biology. I don't need to brag, especially to you.

I have a farm that I have converted into purely native wildlife habitat. On my farm are countless deer, quail, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, you get the picture. I will harvest a tiny fraction of the animals listed. All of them will die, however. Almost none of old age. Something is going to eat these beasts. Numerous studies, for instance, have shown that quail populations have very little to do with hunting pressure, rather habitat is the determinant. What this means is that the same number of quail live into spring to reproduce whether you hunt them or not..I am not making this up. These studies were not done by hunting groups.
They were done by the universities that you and I attended. What I really want to know is why I can't be the predator, according to you. Why can't I do what all the other predators do? Since we are no better than the animals, why can't I have the same rights as a lion or tiger or coyote or hawk? True, I do use guns and bows to predate, but this is my evolutionary advantage. Tigers have claws and teeth. I,we,you have evolved to have giant frontal lobes in our brains that allows to use tools. I'm trying to understand why people I have never met judge me and by all accounts hate me. This is the definition of prejudice.

Somebody fill me in. In this, I admit ignorance (Ana).

Regarding my annoying presence on your blog. Do you really want to set around and tell each other how right you are?
Or, wouldn't you rather have healthy debates to expand your views, strengthen them, re-enforce what you know with more ammunition for future debates? I could go to Ted Nugent's blog, but I wouldn't have anyone to debate with and
those guys are just as wacky as some of you, just from the other side of the moon.

I can feel my brain expanding,
stretching, growing.. it hurts a little.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 13, 2007 06:11 PM

Cochran,
You are time and time again comparing yourself to an animal. You wonder why you should not be allowed to be the predator of these animals instead of other animals being their predators. Let me ask you when you hunt do you do so with your teeth? Do you cook your food or do you find it appealing raw? If you in fact do no catch your pray with your teeth, but instead use weapons to do so you are in no way part of the animal world. Animals do not cook their food their systems are designed unlike ours to digest raw meat. Their intestinal track is also much shorter than ours therefore their food passes through their systems more quickly than ours. In fact our intestinal track is much longer than animals and it takes 5 days for meat to pass through our intestinal track so think of it raw or cooked dead flesh rotting in our systems...yummy!!! I can not even try to make sense of your view on things nor will I try. You want to be looked upon as bonding with nature buy killing and eating animals. If you were an animal how would you like to be shot at with a gun or a bow what ever your weapon of choice is not of concern to me it is still a man made object that people use to do things that are harmful to animals and other living beings. Now think about it as a human sense you obviously have this predator complex how would you like to be chased into the woods and shot down? I don’t think you would find it very fun. You are a human an unfortunately you are the type of human that does not have compassion this worries me deeply because human lives are placed into your hands on a daily bases not to mention your childrens’ lives, and you have very little value for any life form. If you really want to become one with nature try preserving it instead of killing it.

Posted by: Dana | September 13, 2007 06:43 PM

Absolutely! I love to read an actual debate. Why not listen to what Cochran MD is saying without resorting to ugly judgements? Being passionate about creating change and awareness is important. Passion is not a relative of anger. Fear is. Don't be afraid to hear what may appear to be opposite views. Me, personally, I am an animal lover who does not eat animals and I'm not angry. I appreciate the dialogue I've been reading here. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Johnna | September 13, 2007 08:23 PM

To: Annoying Doctor Guy,
in your first comment you said the photo was poultry. Well I actually went to the site it's from and it's a cross section of a jimmy jean sausage. You should go to that site amd actually see what you're defending because if you did I very much doubt you'd still think meat was healthy.

Posted by: natasha | September 13, 2007 09:11 PM

Cochran, your "pain" from your allegedly expanding brain will NEVER be anything nearly as bad as that experienced by the animals you kill. Please spare us all from that nonsense.

Your continued use of "MD" after your name, despite knowing that no one is impressed by it, seems to indicate that you are quite arrogant. I have never seen ANYONE else on this blog, since I have been reading it for the past 6 to 8 months or so, that has felt the need to put their credentials after their name!

And how dare you talk about how you "focus on relieving suffering"? You clearly do not care about the suffering that you cause the animals you kill - and it does not matter if you kill them quickly! You are still deliberately causing harm when no harm is needed. Humans do not need to kill to eat, be clothed or use medications/household products. If our brains are really growing/evolving, then we should ALL realize that we just do not have the right to cause suffering to our fellow earthlings. You actually sound quite whiny with your "why can't I be the predator?" crap. Non-humans do what they have to in order to survive. Humans just do not have to behave like barbarians in order to survive. Why can't you start applying your so-called humane treatment of your patients to non-humans? Have you watched the "Earthlings" movie yet? And don't call us your friends. It does not sound like anyone on this blog respects anything you have to say. Are you surprised that your little "MD" is not causing us to look up to you in awe? It is my understanding that most medical schools do not even offer nutrition courses for its doctors in training. That is just shocking!

Posted by: Michele | September 13, 2007 09:50 PM

Christopher Cochran: Veganism is not a lifestyle, as you call it. It is simply the absence of making choices that inflict pain and cruelty on living beings. And you say that we should stop picking on your "culture." Being a hunter and meat-eater is only as much of a culture as is slavery, human sacrifice, etc. I suppose you could call it culture. But humans grow and expand in their views of morality, and they shed certain aspects of their culture that are too cruel and backwards to keep doing. It is my, and that of most of the others on this blog, opinion that eating meat and hunting are archaic activities that really benefit no one.

Also, we believe that it is hypocritical for someone to claim they love animals, and also shoot them and eat their dead bodies. Would you shoot your dog?? It is really no different than shooting anything else, except that you have developed a personal relationship with your dog. I have not developed any relationships with anyone in Montana, but that does not give me the excuse to shoot one of them because I want to. Also, who cares if some study says that the same numbers of quail exist whether someone shoots them or not?? Someone who shoots them is still directly contributing to their death, and thus should feel guilty. If nature feels there are too many quails and wants to take some of them, she will find some way to do it, such as with lack of food or predators such as coyotes. Cheating and using a gun is not necessary, nor is it helpful. I would have hoped that humans would have evolved beyond animals; they would use their brains and decide that it isn't necessary to kill other animals for any reason whatsoever. Sadly, this hasn't happened.

I am sorry that some on this blog have been calling you names. I agree, it is immature. But we feel strongly about what we believe in, and we get a little worked up over things. But it is really just as bad when you call us "wacky."

Posted by: Kenna | September 13, 2007 10:33 PM

Dr. Cochran,

I just wanted to let you know that not every vegetarian is trying to threaten your way of life. What you decide to consume or not consume, is entirely your choice. However we have that right as well. I am not here to attack you or call you names. I just can't understand why you would go onto a known animal rights page and post comments saying how you hunt animals. Then you are suprised that you are being attacked, you attacked first, however passive aggresively by way of sarcasm. I support your search for a healthy debate, I can't say that I've ever learned anything from anyone who has agreed with me. However I just don't think that this is the proper forum for a debate and I also don't believe you went about it the right way. I hope this doesn't constitute as an attack because it was not my intention to do so to you or anyone else. I hope you all have a wonderful day.

Peace and Love~ Ashley

Posted by: Ashley | September 14, 2007 02:18 AM

I just wanted to say that this is a very interesting discussion. I came to this website through a link from a news story, and just started browsing around. I especially liked Dr. Cochran's remark about his annoying presence on this blog. To Dr. Cochran, I salute you on your responsible consumption of meat. I have always thought that activists would get further by promoting the responsible raising and slaughter of animals than by trying to get people to go "cold turkey" on meat (pardon the pun). As for myself, I have definitely lowered the amount of meat in my diet over the past few years, and I feel great, but I really don't have the desire to go completely vegan. Maybe we should applaud people who make efforts in what we feel is the right direction, instead of expecting them to be just like us.

Posted by: Aaron | September 14, 2007 08:09 AM

Cochran, for an M.D, you sure have alot of time on your hands to be posting your thoughts on this website. I can just see you Cochran. Sitting there, butterflies in your tummy, hoping that someone replied back to your message posted, in fact you probably set your alarm every couple of hours, just to wake up and check this message board out. You love the attention. But it seems sort of pointless you bothering at all, as no one on this message board is going to agree with you on a moral basis, so unless you are doing it for the "craic" quit while you are ahead!!

BRIAN LUZNAK you are marvellous!! Brilliant in fact!! You blew Cochran right off the stage!! I can tell you are much more smart in terms of you know what is right and what is wrong and you do not come across as immature and pathetic like Cockran by writing in every couple of hours and having to get a reaction due to your insecurities. WELL DONE!! Hope to hear more from you!!

Posted by: Laura - Jane - Ireland | September 14, 2007 09:05 AM

Dr. Cochran,

I just wanted to let you know that not every vegetarian is trying to threaten your way of life. What you decide to consume or not consume, is entirely your choice. However we have that right as well. I am not here to attack you or call you names. I just can't understand why you would go onto a known animal rights page and post comments saying how you hunt animals. Then you are suprised that you are being attacked, you attacked first, however passive aggresively by way of sarcasm. I support your search for a healthy debate, I can't say that I've ever learned anything from anyone who has agreed with me. However I just don't think that this is the proper forum for a debate and I also don't believe you went about it the right way. I hope this doesn't constitute as an attack because it was not my intention to do so to you or anyone else. I hope you all have a wonderful day.

Peace and Love~ Ashley

Posted by: Ashley | September 14, 2007 11:51 AM

Good morning, new friends,

Dana,
I,you,we are animals. All animals and plants on this planet survive or go extinct based on the advantages they have evolved. About 20 million years ago, our ancestors were forced from the trees as the great forests of Africa were replaced with savanna. Some of those ancestors continued to eat a primarily plant based diet, while others began to eat a lot more meat. Many paleoanthropologists report the fossil record shows the meat eating lineage began to develop bigger brains,
leading to more tool use. Whether it be spear or shotgun they are all tools. Some animals besides humans use tools to get at their food today. Don't pretend you aren't part of nature..All the plants you eat are grown on land that displaces some other earthling's habitat. We aren't space aliens that leave our ships to view the beauty of this alien planet, being careful to follow the prime directive. We are natural animals that live here with all the other earthlings.
Evolutionarily, we are omnivores. Our guts are much shorter than our primate cousins such as gorillas. Our
appendix is a remnant of a time before we were H. sapien
where we needed larger guts to
ruminate the large amount of plant material. If you ate what a gorilla eats, you would poop a lot and be malnourished.
Michelle,
I also believe in animal equality. If I am walking in the Indian jungle and a tiger sees me, he has every right to
eat me if he can. Just like I have every right to try to get
away. If all animals are equal, don't we all have the same rights? Do we have the right to grow vast tracts of farms and suck all the water out of the river to irrigate those farms so that we can all
enjoy fresh vegetables all year long. Sure we do, but understand that it displaces the habitat of lots of the earthlings you and I love. What do you do to promote wildlife. You don't hunt, sure, but do you spend your time and money to improve habitat. Everything you do to live on this planet displaces some other creature. That is just nature, though. Not bad or good, just nature. We are all competing for the 25% of this planet that isn't wet. I
don't have to hunt to eat or to survive. I believe the quality of meat is better and it is better for me and my family. On the whole, I do a lot more to give than I take away. Do you?
Kenna,
I appreciate your point of view, but did I read correctly that you would rather an animal starve rather
than have me to eat to harvest
it? If I killed animals with my bare hands, that would be ok? I suppose your right. I do make value judgments based on an animals value to me. I love my dog, wife , kids family, all animals. I hate groundhogs (they eat my sweet potatoes) I hate mosquitoes, ticks, chiggers, midges, but
they have every right in the world to suck my blood, I do believe that. Don't feel sorry for me, I am having a blast!
Laura,
What I do in my free time is not the point of this discussion. You are correct in that I am having a great time here. I have learned a lot and have actually changed my attitude about some things.
That Brian sure did show me! I think the last time someone made fun of my name was in third grade when a fourth grader called me Chris Cockroach, hooha!!

Regarding all the complaints about my posting MD. I am so sorry. It is honestly a habit. It's just what we do here in the medical world, and I am not trying to offend you.
It seems to me that it angers some folks to here me say things that you assumed only uneducated hicks thought.

All the best, thanks for allowing me to participate

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 14, 2007 12:43 PM

Christopher Cochran "MD" why are you even on this site? I gather you came just to pick a fight with people who have a conscience and choose to live a lifestyle that steers away from the unneccesary killing and torturing of living creatures.

Posted by: dk | September 14, 2007 12:45 PM

My doctor is a vegetarian, so are his kids. I didn't know doctors had so much free time to blog several times a day??

Posted by: Jamie | September 14, 2007 01:07 PM

Cochran

Gorillas, rhinos, elephants, pandas, beavers and others are vegetarian creatures, so not all animals are carnivores/predators. If humans are so evolved than humans should spend time in life-affirming activities not in killing vegetarian deer, rabbits and ducks. I have heard ad nauseum the same reasons you give to justify killing animals (albeit with weapons, and a bow no less)and it all boils down to the fact that you enjoy taking an active part in the suffering and demise of sentient beings.

Aaron

It's useless and absurd to promote "the responsible raising and slaughter of animals" since the animals will ultimately die a very violent and untimely death. This will only lead to even more animals being slaughtered since people will feel good about their "happy" meals. That is animal welfare NOT animals rights. Slaves didn't want to remain slaves if you treated them with kindness, they simply wanted their freedom. Veganism is life-affirming. Humane slaughter is an oxymoron. Even the lethal injection is considered cruel and unusual punishment as a means to end the lives of those on death row.

Posted by: Ana | September 14, 2007 04:04 PM

Dr.(?) Cochran,
As you must realize, this blog site is a pro-animal rights' blog site by PeTA. It is not a forum for debates or arguments against animal rights. That is to say, it is not a forum for non-animal activists to have intentions of attempting to sway or change animal rights' activists from our committed beliefs. Try as you will and believe as you will, animal rights' activists are not interested in anyone's views that attempt to justify killing animals and eating meat. There are no justifications. Unless any of us were raised from childhood to be veg., I believe it is fair to say that the majority of us were meat-eaters and certainly not animal activists in the past. We were already down that road that you favor. However, we eventually learned about the cruelty to farm and slaughtered animals, and about all the dangers and risks of eating meat, be it store-bought or freshly killed. Animal advocates also share a compassion for animals that is virtually irreversible, which generally enhances having more respect for all life.

Having clarified that much, in general, we have an in-depth knowledge that greatly surpasses the knowledge of people who are unfamiliar with what we have learned. Therefore, it becomes our responsibility to teach them. When that knowledge concerning hunting, slaughterhouses, and the health risks of eating meat is passed on, then the decisions rests on them.
Some animal advocates have medical degrees (like myself), some have degrees in other fields, and some do not have degrees. But that is not particularly important one way or the other when anyone chooses not to broaden his or her desire to continually learn beyond the text books and classroom atmosphere. There has been more than sufficient educated knowledge directed to you by the animal activists on this blog site; yet, Dr.(?) Cochran, it seems you are obviously intent on subjecting yourself to a no-win "debate" on your part. So if you are not willing to learn about animal advocacy, which includes extremely medical expertise by valid doctors and the scientific field, then I fail to understand your true motives for commenting on this blog site, especially your harmful comments that promote eating meat despite the proven health risks that can and do eventually lead to any or most diagnoses of arteriosclerosis, strokes, cardiac bypass surgeries, cardiac arrests to sudden onsets of cardiac fatalities.

Brain fatalities from eating wild animals is another "chapter."
Finally, love of nature and wildlife preservation is not consistent with killing animals.
Wishing you good health!

Posted by: Ariel | September 16, 2007 10:01 AM

Ariel,

I contend that the fattening of America has less to do with meat consumption, and more to do with the ease of access to easily digestible forms of concentrated
calories, some of which do include animal products...Undoubtedly a vegetarian diet is much healthier than the average American diet. I believe, however, that a diet with responsible meat ingestion is more natural and actually even more healthy. Non of the fattest patients in my practice are carnivores. They
all eat too many calories, though.

Exactly what is this forum for? I have been in contact with Mr. Shepherd regarding my presence on this blog, thanking him for allowing me to participate. He indicated to me he that though he definitely did not agree with my point of view, he appreciated healthy debate on his blog and asked me to contact him if I needed anything. Again, Mr Shepherd, thank you for your kind consideration in including me in your forum.

I absolutely do not want you to change your mind about veganism or animal rights. What I would like you to do, is understand different points of view and accept those differences. Basically, stop being bigoted and understand that your opinions especially of hunters and fisherman are based on a very few bad actors. I bet I do more year in, year out, to save or encourage more animals on planet earth than any one hundred of you put together. What have you done lately? Not all PETA people terrorize law abiding citizens and destroy private property,
but some do. Do you want to be defined by those people? I think it is sad that states have to pass laws to keep PETA off my land when I am trying to hunt. By your own land and don't hunt on it. Instead of painting yourself purple and walking around naked, try spending that time and money on improving conditions for domestic and wild animals. I know you do some, why not all.
Standing around on opening day of deer season banging pots and pans in the nude will not get you too far, I don't imagine.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 17, 2007 12:17 PM

Dr.(?) Cochran,
I too had been in touch with Mr. Shepherd a few months ago concerning the purpose of this forum, so I am fully aware of his position, more so than you know. However, I must re-state my point with clarification that this is not a specific forum for non-animal activists to have the intentions of swaying, confusing, or deluding new readers against animal rights...or to have intentions of uselessly swaying or "debating" with animal rights' activists into returning to that path where we have been, which is the path where you are now.

I cannot express this any more clearly: you must try to understand that we already know what your views are as a non-animal activist. In other words, (politely) we can tell you better about your path than you can ever possibly tell us.

And I will also repeat this: as animal activists, we have a responsibilty to pass on the knowledge that we have gained to people who are unfamiliar with such knowledge and then the decisions rest on them, ie, it is not a matter of accepting or not accepting other people's choices. It is a matter, however, of being heard and visible in order to convey our knowledge/messages to make this a better, safer, healthier world, and hopefully encouraging more compassion for all life. (Is that really so bad? Is education so bad?) Television and other forms of media marketing have their opportunities to convey their messages, which I must say, can be and is very deceitful to consumers. Wall St. certainly has the financial edge to take full advantage of that. Most animal activists are not even paid a penny to convey our honest messages. (something for you to think about)

Dr.(?) Cochran, you are basically defending meat consumption despite all of its health risks (as I stated towards the end of my last post to you) rather than being a responsible physician(?) only because you are a meat-eater. Certainly anyone who eats meat and is a hunter is going to defend their beliefs. That is not uncommon. It is also not uncommon, through learning, that some of those same people eventually reject those beliefs.

In your "debate" with me, you really became far-fetched concering my animal activism involvement with your false accusations and false speculations, as well as generalizing animal activists as being bigoted and suggesting that we are narrow-minded. I am sorry to say, Dr.(?) Cochran, your comments do not reflect a person who is open-minded or one who is willing to learn beyond a limited scope due to your somewhat solid focus of animal activists' activities merely being nude, banging pots and pans, etc. Therefore, it is not me or us who needs to understand the vast opinions and our stance. There is much, much more to animal activism than you obviously perceive.

I fail to understand how you save or encourage more animals on planet earth than a hundred of us put together when you eat meat and hunt. I think you are being quite hypocritical about that. Not one of us REAL animal activists eats meat, hunts, or consumes any animal-related food source. So in reality, just one of us alone does more to that effect than you, as well as we do not purchase, wear, or encourage the use fur, leather, or any other animal-related "apparel." And we are intensely aware of the needless, barbaric animal suffering and torture caused by the hands of mankind, who is supposed to be the most intelligent species.

My constant beliefs, which defines how I would like to be perceived as an animal activist is as a person who truly understands that all life is inter-related, all life should be respected, all living beings have the God-given right to their lives. I believe that animal activism encompasses the human/animal/environmental/societal relationship...as in a ripple effect. Torturing, killing, and/or destroying ANY living beings casts a negative effect that affects and effects ALL of us. That, Dr.(?) Cochran, is seeing the bigger picture.
May I suggest that you do some research, perhaps you can start by reading about Dr. Albert Schwietzer. Perhaps you can familiarize yourself with St. Francis of Assisi, and so many, many other notables throughout history (and presently) who believed, maintained, and spoke out about having a respect for the animal kingdom...this earth...the only one we all have to either destroy or to enhance.

(Be assured that I have not "debating" with you. I have been teaching you. So all of this is why you really should do some serious research on animal activism in order to have an educated concept)
Good health to you!

Posted by: Ariel | September 18, 2007 10:02 AM

Christopher,

You said, "Non of the fattest patients in my practice are carnivores."

So what are you implying that they are? Are they omnivores (I've yet to meet a human that's an pure or sole carnivore) or vegetarians?

According to position paper of the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada:

Among Seventh-day Adventists, 40% of whom follow a meatless diet, vegetarian eating patterns have been associated with lower body mass index. In the Adventist Health
Study, which compared vegetarians and nonvegetarians within
the Adventist population, BMI increased as the frequency of
meat consumption increased in both men and women.

In the Oxford Vegetarian Study, BMI values were higher in non- vegetarians compared with vegetarians in all age groups and for both men and women.
In a study of 4,000 men and women in England comparing the relationship between meat consumption and obesity among meat eaters, fish eaters, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and vegans, mean BMI was highest in the meat eaters and lowest in the vegans. BMI was lowest in those lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans who had adhered to their diet for 5 years or longer.

So perhaps, meat-eating does correlate with obesity.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 18, 2007 12:26 PM

Mr. Quinoa,

I completely agree with your information. SDA's live on average five years longer than the average American. I do not contend that vegetarian diets aren't healthier than average American diets. First, the calorie intake isn't comparable.
Vegetarians vs. average has a huge selection bias because many socioeconomic factors as well as education levels also interfere with cross sectional studies. You guys are usually smarter and richer. Be that as it may, vegan/vegetarians are healthier.

What I contend, is that a diet of similar calories free of refined grain products and rich in vegetables, fruits, nuts and lean meats (as the main protein source, not legumes) is a healthier diet than vegan diets. Not much, but healthier. Or at least as healthy. I believe this is the diet we were intended to eat. It is the diet that we ate prior to the agricultural revolution and the domestication of grain products, which I as well as noted scientists and physicians marked the beginning of many diseases that didn't exist prior to the agricultural revolution. The meat products I endorse are pre-agricultural revolution. One example is beef vs. bison meat. Grain fed beef is loaded in saturated fat and is, if over ingested, unhealthy. Bison on the other hand is loaded in omega-3's, and is a low fat complete source of protein. Deer, fish,
squirrel, rabbit, shellfish (careful of pollution here, though) are all extremely healthy sources of nutrition.
People who eat oily fish (salmon, tuna, trout, sardines, et.al) one or more times per week have a 20% decreased risk of stroke in their lives. I contend that not all meats or vegetables(refined wheat, potato or corn products) are healthy. But some meats are very healthy as are most plant based foods. The carnivore comment was lousy dry humor. I get the feeling that some of the more unreasonable readers of this blog think that all we
do is eat meat.

Ariel,
After your (polite) comment claiming to know more about my point of view than I do, no one can refer to me as the most arrogant person on this blog, anymore. Put your money where your mouth is. What have you done this week to promote animals. Boycotting something doesn't count as that is doing nothing (passive). How much of your own money have you spent improving the conditions of any animal. The cat or dog you rescued? That is one. You obviously fail to understand what I do for wildlife and wild animals because, I expect, your urban existence has disconnected you from the earth such that when you visit a rural area and see all this wildlife, you actually believe you are on some wild safari where all these animals are there for your viewing pleasure. Those animals are there because people like me spend a lot of time, money and effort to conserve their natural habitat and insist that they persevere despite ongoing development by agriculture and urban sprawl. I harvest less than one millionth of a percent of all the native plants and animals (I am rather fond of plants as well as animals) that my farm fosters. I have seen starving deer, hairless squirrels, and
other diseased animals due to
overcrowding. Have you? If we are to live amongst these animals and plants then we must participate in managing them. A great deal of that management is reversing mistakes of the past.

If you have a message that you feel is right, by all means spread it. But when you discourage me from what I do, you need to have a better understanding of what you are discouraging. Killing for no
reason is wrong.....of course it is. Throwing red dye on rich people, as fun as it looks, is also wrong. One thing I do know is you don't want to have rich people pissed off at you. Instead of pissing people off and galvanizing them against you, realize that many of us are on the same team and would very much like to work for a common goal. Spend your time working for a great group like the Nature Conservancy who work with landowners, hunters and animal activists for the same goals.

All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 18, 2007 06:16 PM

Cochran,

I must go back to one of your previous comment stating that meat played an important role in evolution. According to you meat is the sole reason that we came down out of trees, and developed ways of eating meat. I don’t agree with this for the simple reason that Archeologisthave shown that stone tools used in tearing the flesh from meat were invented 2.5 million years ago. The catch to this is 5 million years ago our ancestors started walking up-right. There is no proof that meat could have possibly played a part of us growing more intelligent. I do not dispute the fact that even 5 million years ago our ancestors ate meat to survive I do however know that at that they were scavengers and would take what ever was there to eat mostly what was left of a kill from most likely the saber tooth tiger. Studies have shown that our closest living animal relative is the chimpanzees we share a 98.5% DNA pattern so much can be learned from their eating habits. Meat only makes up 3% of a chimpanzees over all diet therefore there is no reason to believe that much nutritional value is made up in their diets by meat. If our ancestors did eat meat 5 million years ago the supply was limited and seasonal so it is hard to say that the intake of meat made up much of our diets 5 million years ago. It is hard to say that we were suppose to eat meat given the fact that even chimpanzees will not eat already killed meat it is more likely to say that our ancestors were scavengers and ate what was available at the given moment. Yes stone tools were created to make meat eating easier but all that this really proves is even as of today people develop a taste for meat it does not prove that our bodies are suppose to intake meat or that meat is the sole reason that we evolved. There is a more detail study on all of this, but I will not go into all of it. I do think before justifying eating any meat you need to take the following into consideration:

*Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
*Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
*The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline

*Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
*Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

*Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
*Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores

With all of this said it does not really matter if you raise your own meat antibiotic and hormone free. It does not matter if you so called eat “natural meat” it just proves that in reality our diets are not made up for ANY meat. We developed as humans the desire and taste for meat during evolution and it continues heavy today. Humans do a lot of things that we are not meant to do, but with brains we developed doing meat and dairy consumption are no exception to this rule. I can see where you would be confused being a MD and all constantly bombarded by meat and dairy commercials from a very unregulated meat and dairy industry. The latest milk commercial even states that drinking milk will help you maintain a healthy weight. When in fact Milks main function in nature is to turn a 90 pound calf into a 420 pound cow. I do not care if you eat meat you can play with your health all you want. What I do care about however though is an industry that has no government regulations lying to people about the health benefits of eating meat and consuming dairy. I do have a problem with all the commercials that put into peoples head that the meat and dairy they consume is cruelty free when in fact the meat and dairy industry are anything but. I know that you raise your own animals and would no way be responsible for the cruelty of animals, but killing them for your own consumption when they are not yours to kill in my honest opinion is cruelty (keep in mind we don’t own nature it in fact owns us). Smokers make a choice when they smoke, but there is a warning label on the pack of cigarettes that states may cause health problems the same should be done for all of the adverse effects of eating meat and consuming dairy, but there is not instead there are commercials promoting the benefits that are flat out lies because unfortunately GREED runs this country. I want people everywhere to know the side effects of meat and dairy and be able to make their own choice just like smokers have a choice. If when you learn the down side of the meat and dairy industries you decide to continue a diet of meat, and dairy that is fine but at least you know both sides and not only the one the meat and dairy industries want you to know.

As for you comment of vegetarians taking up our land by growing vegetables.....Would you not rather live in a world covered with natural growing fruits and vegetable rather than dusty, dirt fields covered in animal feces?

Posted by: Dana | September 19, 2007 09:02 AM

Dr.(?) Cochran,
Apparently you have become so defensive, that you are offended with my comment which was purposely pointed out with the honest intention of being polite. Yet after I reviewed a number of your previous comments to others, I see that you did not mind slinging intentional insults at them, which obviously magnifies your continuous contradictory statements in one post after the other. Just in your latest post to me alone, you talk about your "wildlife preservation," which is a term used by hunters like yourself to try to mask the justification for killing innocent animals as you see fit and proper. Dr.(?) Cochran, "preservation" and "harvesting" (killing) is contradictory. "Overcrowding" of animals is another term/excuse used by hunters, which means that you want to control the natural order of nature. So in reality, Dr.(?), Cochran, it is you and the hunters who are not fully in touch with nature...but in fact, are more inclined to have excuses to ease your consciences since you said "Killing for no reason is wrong." That is correct. There is no reason to purposely kill defenseless animals who harm no one. Yes, we are to be stewards of the animals (or "management" as you refer to it), but stewardship/"management" are not exchangeable definitions meaning to kill or to control wildlife.

As you continue with your false speculative comments, I did not discourage you from doing what you do, ie, I merely presented (spread) my messages as you yourself suggested with what I believe to be is right... which is supported by approximately 10 years of gaining knowledge from being involved in animal activism...which is supported by uncountable experts who offered their input about pro-animal advocacy - and sometimes their life-long struggles - from the areas of science, medicine, conservation/preservation, religion, philosophy, education, law enforcement, and from the legacies of immortalized leaders who sought justice for all life. But let me not speak solely of the past. Animal rights' in its fullest sense has been and is gaining a grand momentum, and is accomplishing tremendous strides in our lifetime as never before...and this is only the beginning. Animal rights' activists are not focused on just one issue or one area of animal concerns as you are. Our vast realm of activities also includes a relationship towards the betterment of humans, society in general, and our environment. Also, hunters and animal activists positively do not have the same goals...another contradiction.

You asked what I have done for animals this past week and said to put my money where my mouth is. Well, Dr.(?)Cochran,I am permanently physically disabled with numerous incurable diagnoses, mostly homebound, and have a very limited income.(and no, not poor me) BUT my circumstances do not stop me from humanely trapping feral cats/kittens on my back porch, have them tested, vaccinated, spayed/neutered*, and keep them. So this past week, I spent over a $100 just for their food and medications. I am also involved in other animal-related activities to the best of my ability, but I prefer not to brag about them because I do not seek self-glorification. However, what ever I do may not seem like much to you or important, but I am not out to impress anyone...particularly the rich people that you related I should be so concerned about.
If you think that I am being defensive with my comments, you would be wrong. Once again, I am teaching you that there is a bigger picture.

(*spayed/neutered: I am dealing with a rampant problem of the feral cats having incurable feline leukemia. They are not adoptable, let alone having kittens that are not adoptable. However, I do not have the cats euthanized/killed. You may consider spaying/neutering as "control" of the cat population, especially the ones that are FeLV positive, but if you can find loving homes for hundreds of cats and kittens, then please let me know).
As always, good health to you!

Posted by: Ariel | September 19, 2007 11:43 AM

Christopher,

You certainly don't have to be rich to be veg or vegan. For best health, yes, you do have to research your food choices intelligently. Cello-packed beans and lentils are stupidly inexpensive. I can also buy 2 pounds of steel-cut oat groats for $1.50 at my local bulk food outlet. Organic quinoa, while not cheap, has a complete essential amino acid profile (like soy beans) and is highly digestible, and beneficial for people suffering from Celiac disease, etc.

Very little of the population consumes the wild varieties of animal meat that you are able to obtain. Factory-farmed meat is the norm for the vast majority, and it is far from healthy.

People become veg for different reasons. Some, like the police officer featured in a previous blog who went vegan, do it for reasons of health. Some do it for environmental reasons.

I would think most people who are PETA members and also veg do it for animal welfare or rights considerations. That is their over-riding motivation, and while they should certainly expect health at least equal to a careful omnivore, they also enjoy a spiritual peace knowing they have minimized their personal impact on the suffering of animals. That you can't get on a plate, and is of utmost importance to a lot of us here.

What is your evidence for your contention that lean meats, as opposed to legumes, are a superior protein source for humans? Also what do you consider are human physiological characteristics that predispose us to meat-eating?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 19, 2007 04:48 PM

Ariel,

We are on the same team. I appreciate that you remove those feral cats from your environment that typically devastate the songbird populations. Good for you. (No irony whatsoever intended, honest)

I know you hear the overpopulation thing a lot on this website, but I ask again.
Have you ever seen starving wild animals?

Game animals are most definitely not defenseless, by the way. They don't attack, but they have very effective defense mechanisms. I would love nothing more than to bring you here and show you what a shangri-la my farm is for native Ozark plants and animals. Then you could "gain
knowledge" about how we all care for animals (and plants) and that we need to work together rather than line up on opposite sides of this battle line.

Also, I will never use "preservationist" to describe my habits. Preservation, or a complete non intervention stance, does not benefit wildlife nearly to the degree that conservation does. The reasons are many, but mainly because pure preservation is impossible in most of the US because of the proximity of humans, and the past interventions (and mistakes) of our ancestors. What we do is imperfect, but we do the best we can as we have seen what psuedo-nonintervention does. An example would be the rampant uncontrollable wildfires in the West. If those areas had been burned on a regular basis, they would not have nearly so much trouble AND the wildlife would prosper more. Every time the USFS tries to burn a national forest, though, the Sierra Club, (known preservationists) fights them tooth and nail. In their ignorance, they hurt what they are trying to preserve.

All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 19, 2007 05:40 PM

Dr.(?)Cochran,
I think we have a little bit of a different motive concerning the feral cat population and the songbirds. I take in the feral cats because my heart goes out to them when I know that they are basically domesticated animals that mankind has been irresponsible about, such as abandoning cats that produce cycles of kittens, who become adults and live their lives in constant fear, sickness, hunger, thirst, and fighting the weather elements. For me to agree about them being predators of the songbirds, yes, that is very, very bothersome to me, as well as the cats being predators of mice...yet it would be hypocritical of me since I believe in not interfering with the natural order of the animal kingdom. So all I can honestly say is that I really wish that it did not have to be that way since I do not believe in killing at all, just as much as I wish we did not have wars, murders, abortions, and executions.

No, I have never seen starving wild animals, but I have heard penty of times hunters saying that one of their main reasons why they hunt is to save the deer from starving to death. Yet I find it ironic that I never heard of or seen any hunter coming out of the woods with an emaciated deer; but in fact, they brag about how big the deer is and about how many points the bucks have - and even have their pictures in the newspaper. Nevertheless, they try to make the point that it is the biggest of the deer population that gives reason for the others to starve. My opinion remains that they are interfering with nature - the natural order. At this point, I am going to interject that I favor animal sanctuaries who accept wild animals - from circuses, horrible zoos,individual owners, etc. - and let them live out their natural lives with well-being.
Also, mankind insists on building concrete jungles and shopping malls where wild animals normally habitate, as well as irresponsibly causing forest fires.
Of course I know that wild animals are not totally defenseless. Each has their own natural defenses and nature itself "controls" each species by survival of the fittest. But my issue is about hunting (killing), which I resent mankind's controlling interference that has even occasionally caused the complete demise or near extinction of some animals species. So a part of that ripple effect that I mentioned is when any one type of species becomes over-populated, then once again mankind steps in to control, control, control - and still upsets the balance. When the balance of nature is upset, then in turn, that affects people. And I think: "who are we to control what is naturally God-given?" I also resent when people build houses in the wooded areas of animals' natural habitats and kill the wild animals just because they come too close to their homes. That is so totally senseless, especially when those very same people say they want to live among nature because they appreciate it - so hypocritical.
I believe that nature - animals, plant life, and the waters - are on this earth for ALL of us to enjoy, appreciate, and that all are helpful to us for reasons that do not include destroying or killing. For one example, the animals give warning to the people who live in the areas where tsunamis occur by running away from the water, seeking higher ground, long before the tsumanis hit land. But "intelligent" mankind, who is too proud to be in sync with those animals, believes it is necessary to spend millions of dollars for high-tech warning devices that are not considered particularly dependable. Anyway, I find it very self-centered of certain people when think they have a right to deny other peoples' temporary earthly "rights" by killing, destroying, and/or controlling what was meant for ALL of us as is.
I do not particularly perceive us - you and me -as being on opposite sides of the "battle line." You have your special gifts, and I have my special gifts. Hopefully both of us are using our gifts as wisely as we can, to the best of our ability. I found my niche to use my gift as an animal activist because it really does encompass all of my beliefs, from earthly to spiritual.
Good health to you!

Posted by: Ariel | September 19, 2007 09:04 PM

Ariel,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Unfortunately many groups are defined by their worst actors. Muslims, Christians, animal activists, all have radical members who do more harm to their cause than help. Hunters are no exception.
There are some Elmer Fudds out there who do rotten things and call it hunting. They are a minority, but they do make the newspaper. Most hunters, especially those of us who own our own land, consider ourselves stewards of the land. We do the best we can to ensure that wildlife perseveres so that all may enjoy. The environment is damaged and fragile. Mostly, however, it does take care of itself. However it does need some gentle guidance. Some of the practices might seem destructive to a lay person.
About every three years I burn my entire farm under control.
This encourages seed bearing forbes and discourages too much brushy undergrowth. I also benefit wildlife by poisoning non native fescue (the kind of grass that lives in yards). I am not a big fan of poison, but there is no other way of getting rid of the stuff. These methods are all sanctioned by wildlife experts, I didn't make them up. I imagine you might not have expected some of those practices were necessary to promote wildlife. It is a complex, but fascinating process.

All the best

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 20, 2007 09:05 AM

Dr.(?) Cochran,
My thoughts about groups and organizations is that not one of them are perfect - no matter who or what they represent on this earth - absolutely none. I base my belief on the fact that all of us are human, and we are imperfect. So where ever there are people, it is a guarantee that nothing can be perfect. Instead of enhancing the group or org., some cause problems or play better-than-thou, ie, ego trips. And yes, some do make a bad impression for the group or org., which unfortunately gets more publicity sometimes, and then the entire group or org. is perceived to be that way. It is precisely with that in mind that I mentioned to you a few times to keep an open mind and take the time to learn about animal activism because, as I said, there is much, much, much more to it than your initial negative impressions that you mentioned - which unfortunately is common. Also, I would like you to know that all animal activists do not always agree on how every issue is presented. BUT we ALL agree on prioritizing the animals. That does not mean that we do not have other priorities or concerns in life. Yet, we have to constantly tell people on this site that this is an animal rights' site and that they can easily go to other sites that are specifically designed to express their other issues, which are unrelated to animal rights. (yet, it they really wanted to learn, they would take the time to discover the connection between animal activism and their other issues)

Now I am going on to "radical." Radical - stems from the Greek word, meaning: to get to the root (of something). Unfortunately it has taken on a derogatory meaning to decribe a person or people who go against the norm of society. Society generally does not like changes or to be told something different than to what they are strictly accustomed. It does not matter if what they believe is wrong or has become out-moded. Examples of people who were percieved as "radicals" was Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Ghandi. Yes, frequently animal rights' activists are viewed as radicals in a derogatory manner. However, I accept being called a radical as a compliment because then I know that our cause is not stagnant. But I do understand how you meant it when you used that description of certain Muslims, Christians, animal activists, and hunters. Although if you were to understand the in-depth reasons behind certain animal activists' actions, then it would make more sense - yet still would not be necessarily agreeable to you. Anyway, animal activists aim to get to the root of animal-related issues, present the facts to raise awareness over stagnant thinking - then it goes into a lot of detail.

I was not familiar with poisoning the non native fescue, but I was aware of farmers burning the undergrowth in order to have healthier crops. Both courses of action are understandable.

So for what it is worth, I appreciate the good you do for the land and for the animals, but of course you know that I can never agree with about hunting.

I just thought of something. Perhaps you can think of animal activists as people who burn the "undergrowth" to clear the way for new, healthier growth. Somehow, Dr.(?) Cochran, it is all becomes related.
Good health to you!

Posted by: Ariel | September 20, 2007 09:13 PM

Mike,

These are excellent questions. I am sorry that I have taken so long to answer, but the posts are delayed and out of order and I lost track of your questions.

First, I cite my first argument regarding our inability to manufacture certain vitamins and fatty acids. The essential omega three fatty acids are not found in adequate concentrations in any plants available to paleolithic man to account for the enormous human brain. Many paleontologists believe that after the Indian subcontinent smashed into Asia, the weather in equatorial Africa became much dryer causing the rain forests to greatly shrink. The resulting savanna forced our ancestors out of the trees. Some of the early primates continued to live on a primarily herbivorous diet, while another branch began eating meat, probably carrion, at first. The plant eating protohumans are now extinct, as the other great apes are a different branch.
The readily available protein and fat source (including omega-3's) Paleolithic man did not have consistent access
to leguminous protein. No peanuts, peas or beans in adequate quantities. Besides, raw legumes have phytochemicals that prevent the absorption of many of the proteins they contain. These
chemicals are inactivated on cooking. He also didn't have much access to simple sugars.
A little honey and fruit sugar, but no wheat or grain products en masse. So, I believe, the enormous human brain is evidence of our meat eating history. After the agricultural revolution society was able to produce large amounts of storable calories in grains, lentils and the like. This allowed for a population explosion, because in a paleolithic diet, calories are at a premium. In the modern diet, calories are much easier, protein is at a premium. Evidence of our evolution away from an herbivorous diet is seen in our vermiform appendix, a remnant of a large cecum that harbored bacteria that manufactured the nutrients we now obtain from animal products, while allowing us the ability to better digest copious plant material. By all means, don't take my word for it as these are not my original ideas. I refer you to Loren Cordain, Ph.D. and James O'Keefe, MD and their awesome research on early man's diet and the modern health ramifications.

Wild game vs. Modern Meat.

Beeves, for example, have been line bred for centuries to have specific traits. Some where bred to overlactate, as others were bred to marble in their musculature and gain weight quickly. When you feed a beef pure grain products, you encourage this marbling as well. Bison, not the true progenitor of modern cattle, but so closely related as to be able to interbreed with cattle, do not have a significant amount of marbled saturated fat intramuscularly.
Also, if you feed a cow only grass, the meat will be less fatty, and contain a better O-3 to O-6 ratio. Wild game are on the whole much more lean and contain good fats (fats necessary for good health) rather than the saturated bad fats of modern livestock. If you ate meat, you would note how much drier venison, rabbit, or quail are versus a domestic analog. What fat there is is essential fats, though if you ate nothing but rabbit meat, you would actually starve from lack of calories.

I believe the average American diet is harmful not only because of these fatty meats, but also the easily obtained, concentrated grain sugars...
The PCRM is not widely accepted in the medical community. They are made up of only five percent physicians and do not contribute to the standards of good medical practice. They are supported by PETA, and they have upper level PETA members on their board. I doubt they could hardly be considered unbiased in their medical advice.

One last comment on meat.
Raw Meat...

Humans are perfectly able to eat raw meats if they are not prepared incorrectly. It just
doesn't taste good to our modern palates. Venison is much better prepared rare than overcooked. Commercial meats are unsafe, though largely due to contamination during processing with exposure to gut flora.
I don't know if this is clear.
Some of this scientific jargon is tough to translate into English.

Thank you for your time and interest.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 20, 2007 09:56 PM

Dr.(?) C.,
Oh please! "some of this scientific jargon is difficult to translate into English." Please do not undermine our intelligence - certainly not Mike Quinoa's intelligence.
"Venison is much better prepared raw than over-cooked." ?
Have you ever heard of Crutzfeld-Jacobs' disease with relationship to venison that affects the brain?
Only a coroner can verify that diagnosis, which occurs quite suddenly - and it should go with saying that it is definitely incurable.

Posted by: Ariel | September 23, 2007 01:27 PM

Ariel,

Your emotion is getting the best of you. I said "rare" not raw.
CJD is carried in neuronal tissues, not meat. It is exceedingly rare. I have never seen a patient with CJD, but I have seen hundreds with diseases related to domestic cats, fortunately most of which survived. Anyway, I can't say that "raw" venison isn't good because I've never eaten it, but as long as it wasn't exposed to gut flora, like the lettuce and spinach in California, it would pose no health risk.

All the best.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 23, 2007 10:18 PM

Mr Cochran,
I think when trying to get a point across and using Dr’s names such as Loren Cordain, Ph.D. and James O'Keefe, MD you really study their research. You will also find that little is known about our diets when the earth reformed many years ago and mammals took over the earth. Many well known researchers will tell you the only way to truly find out what the diet was way back when is to find the DNA split between Chimpanzee and human which as of now has not been done. It is hard to say that meat played a very important role in our diets because meat consumption was not readily available as it is today and according to research was seasonal even chimpanzees only take in 3% of meat in their overall diet which plays very little to no nutritional value in their diets many top researchers feel that if you look at the eating pattern of chimpanzees it is the most accurate way to look at the diets of our ancestors. If that is the case you will see that 3% of meat in an overall diets does not help your brain or your body very much. I think from what you are saying that Vegan’s (which if you will look at the research of Cordain he does not find the health benefits of dairy at all) or vegetarians are stupid? We no longer take in meat so what our brain will now turn to mush? I hate to point out the obvious to you but this Paleo Diet that Dr. Cordain has come up with is nothing but a vegan/vegetarian diet the only difference is that in order for people to want to follow it he feels that he must tempt them with the prospect of eating lean meat. Most people do not like the sound of changing their habits and cutting our meat altogether,
and unfortunately think the thought of never eating meat again is just too much to handle. I find it very funny that the two names you spoke of Loren Cordain, and James O’Keefe claim to have come up with the perfect diet, but in order to follow this diet you have to purchase books and kits to start it. Yes you can purchase books on vegan and vegetarians that go into detail about the health benefits, and the down side to the meat & dairy industries but it is not mandatory. Every thing you need to know about a vegan/vegetarian diet is only a mouse click away, and free on the internet you do not have to purchase anything to follow this lifestyle. There was an article I read recently that stated we do have the cure for cancer it is our own bodies. Our bodies have the ability to fight off diseases such as cancer, but the proper lifestyle has to be followed you can not cram your body full of junk that limits its immunity which in turn limits its ability to fight diseases. There is no amount of reading or research that is more convincing than results themselves. Yes the Atkins diet showed immediate results, but also linked a lot of health problems and weight gain right back after a certain time period on the diet. A complete vegan diet has proven to be worth its weight in gold in our household. My husband had high blood pressure that is no longer the case now it is perfect! My husband cholesterol dropped 15 points after only being a vegan for 11/2 months. We feel better, have much more energy and enjoy life knowing that we have done our part to not only help stop animal cruelty, but for our environment.
I also think that you need to know that some doctors that decide to push certain diets do so with the wrong intentions look at Dr. Robert Atkins he created the Atkins diet which would allow people to do the opposite of what most diets persuade you to do which is cut meat out to a minimum and eat more fruits and vegetables. It was a meat eaters dream come true...even the weight watchers point system penalizes you in points for eating meat. They also bring up the fact that meat sits in your colon for many days before passing through. Dr. Atkins just so happen to be clinically obese at the time of his death. It is a proven fact that Carbohydrates work as fuel for our body and we do need them. Yes like with anything else you can go overboard. The examiner's report said that Dr Atkins had suffered a previous heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, all conditions that are related to obesity. No one knows for sure if Dr. Atkins actually followed his own diet, but one could only ask if he did not why? Why would he recommend a diet he himself would not follow or did he in fact follow this diet and it lead to his long history of health problems and obesity.

Mr. Cochran you can use all of your fancy medical terms that I now feel you are getting from reading reports and copying word for word on off the internet. I do not feel that you really are a doctor nor have I ever. You can try and justify killing animals by making yourself feel that you are saving them from starving to death. If animals ever do end up starving to death it is because humans have taken away the environment they need to thrive. You do realize that the reason they think dinosaurs grew so big was because of the PERFECT environment they were a part of. It is my personal opinion that you should not kill what is not yours, but I realize not everyone sees it that way. Nature can balances itself without the help of humans with guns. If a certain animal becomes over populated it is only because fear from humans has forced their predators into extinction. Humans are known for destroying what they fear and do not understand. You can also try as hard as you want to convince yourself that eating meat is healthy and justified, but many people here have showed you that your bull crap theories do not justify you beliefs. I just hope one day the world will wake up and see things in a different light before it is too late!

Posted by: Dana | September 24, 2007 12:04 PM

Hmmm...

Well, first off I'd like to say that I'm surprised this debate is still going on this long in this forum. Not that we couldn't all use a debate to further articulate our own viewpoints. But wow... I'm surprised. Secondly, let me apologize for the attitude I used earlier to combat Dr. Chris Cochran's initial remark in regard to the photograph and then his comments toward some of the people who replied with their viewpoints as well. It was probably childish to come off as arrogant as I did. I just wanted to seem as smarmy as Dr. C. C., I suppose. "Not much fat here, just delicious uncooked protein." I still can't figure out who comes to a PETA blog and throws around that kind of arrogance though. Must be a Doctor of Sarcasm trained at Smarmy University in Arrogantville, Indiana. Anyway, I'm sorry to come and bring my viewpoints to the discusion Captain Chris Cochran (or wait, that was General wasn't it; or was it Doctor?). Thirdly, as for the heavy debate over early man eating meat and then developing larger brains, you'll be surprised to know that most of the research done in the last five years actually points to something else entirely. And in fact, science will positively prove that it was the missing link all along. What am I talking about? Cooking. Funny word. Really. The idea of heating food to a specific temperature to acheive edibility. You see, it was right around the time that we learned to harvest fire that man's brains acutally took off. For the first time ever, man was able to eat a huge variety of foods once unthinkable. And most of those brain busters were in fact plants and not animals. In fact, as for eating of meat, science has actually proven that the math behind the chemistry of such said food, reverses growth in human development almost unanimously. Unheard of diseases come from eating creatures with neural structures like us. CJD being one of them of course. Mad Cow another. But yeah, Doc, the heating of foods at one time unedible allowed us for the first time to eat nutrition our predators could only dare to dream. And meat eating took some time after that initial brain growth explosion and is often times confused with that. I could see how you could make the mistake. You're a doctor and a conservationist. You've got alot on your plate and are too busy to do all the research. Anyway, I'm curious where this came from, "The essential omega three fatty acids are not found in adequate concentrations in any plants available to paleolithic man to account for the enormous human brain." because that's just untrue. In fact, the animals available to paleolithic man were far less giving in the omega fatty acid department. Fish, maybe you could swing around with that arguement, but even then you'd be wrong to say that plant life just didn't have it from that area. It did. In fact, animals developed it from the plants. Kind of ironic in a way. Animals live off plants then some plants, animals, and humans live off other animals and sometimes humans. It's like driving a car because you like the fact that it has two tires and a seat. You'd totally ignore the fact that a bike was the better choice having two tires and one seat while a car actually has four tires and four seats. (I hope that made sense to you. I'm sure it did, you've got a Phd. I imagine you probably drive a hummer, too. What does the hummer have? 16 seats and 12 tires?) Sir Doctor Major, can I be frank here? (If I can't be Frank then who can I be? Can I be a doctor, too?) You're right in the sense that animal activists are "radicals". Thanks for pointing that out. I mean, I thought the word activist pointed it out enough but it wasn't until you coined it that it finally made sense. We're radicals and we are radically opening the world to a form of intelligence yet to be discovered and soon to be uncovered, all in the name of radical thinking. We don't eat animals. We respect them. You don't respect them if you kill them, period. You probably only respect yourself. Your sight goes no further. Point period. You kill something, you no longer respect it. Why? All life longs for one thing. To live. Plant life, Animal life, Human life. All of it wants to live. That's why it grows, that's why it reproduces, that's why it thrives. To live. And if you kill it, then you've just taken away its basic right. And no, you can't own land. Land owns you. There is a difference. Now, some humans see our position and take the higher road. Some just don't. Sure you can take the road you're on. Just remember, there is always a higher road, higher moral ground, higher thinking. If you kill something, it will find a way to pay you back. Regardless if you think you were right. You'll see. It's like taking a cookie from the cookie jar. Eventually the cookies will run out and you'll have to learn to either add to the cookie jar or go hungry. Some would say, buy some cookies. Some would say make some cookies. And yet some of us say, How about a nice vegetarian spaghetti with spinach, carrots, broccoli, and homeade pasta sauce with a side of berries and nice glass of wine. We've totally forgetton the value of the cookie ("senseless killing") and realized there is so much more to life than "the cookie jar" (closed-minded thinking). These are secrets the kitchen (productive unified thinking) still has yet to show us.

Probably Sounds Radical.

Hope So.

Posted by: Brian Luznak Still Not An MD | September 25, 2007 05:26 PM

Dana and Brian-still-not-an-MD: thank you for the wonderful posts! Humorous and informative at the same time.

I have not really tried to research the history of man eating meat, though I find the information from the various bloggers fascinating.

However, for me the bottom line is that whether or not humans may have eaten meat out of necessity at some point, humans just do not need to do so anymore. We do not have to kill animals to survive, and we know that eating meat is unhealthy (yes, even "organic" meat).

Humans do not get to be superior just because we have fashioned weapons that animals cannot hope to defend themselves against. Now that we have even more proof that the meat industry is the biggest cause of global warming, it is clear that the human species is making a complete mess of this planet in so many ways.

Posted by: Michele | September 25, 2007 10:07 PM

I know now that the signs of me becoming an animal activist started from the time I knew what an animal was. I have always felt deep respect and a bond with animals. I know that animal activist all share the common bond of compassion for animals, but I don’t think the people that think animals are just animals, and were put on this earth for our consumption, entertainment, and torture really understand the passions of animal activist. Instead they try and dig deep into history to find any justification for mistreatment or consumption of animals. The history of planet earth is nothing short of fascinating I just wish people would stop comparing the consumption of meat of our ancestors which were at that point in time scavengers and ate what ever was available to them for survival. There was not a Bilo, Publix, or Ingles down the road where you had choices in what you ate millions of years ago, instead you were forced to eat what ever you found. That is not the case today however we do have choices now on what our bodies are designed to eat. It is proven that there are many different outlooks on this subject, and some people will always defend meat eating, because it is something they want to do. Humans have a very keen survival instinct, and even millions of years ago did what ever it took to survive. By saying that meat eating was a part of our past so it must be something we are suppose to do now is almost like saying that the airplane crash victims in the 1972 plane crash in the Andes after weeks of starvation, and struggle to survive started eating the remains of the others would indicate that maybe we are also suppose to be cannibals. This is no crazier than comparing the habits of our ancestors millions of years ago to now. It is proven that tribes that practiced cannibalism suffered many health problems, and symptoms of what we now call mad cows disease which in fact comes to us now from cows being turned into cannibals. It is also proven that our systems just are not made up to digest meat or cholesterol properly.

If any of you that have read this biog. are thinking of becoming a vegetarian or even vegan I will admit that it is a challenge like any other life changing thing you do. The hardest part for us was eating out because most menus cater to meat based diets. However there is something for vegetarians on every menu. Reading labels at first was a little time consuming, but thanks to the Goveg website shopping was made easier with a list of what name brand things we can have. Now after many trips to the grocery store we know what we can and cannot have. Our taste buds have changes so much as well things that while on a meat based diet I would have never liked nor even tried I now enjoy very much. It also does not take us near as long to become full we do not eat until we pop like we seem to do on meat. My family is a large southern family, and I must say our eating habits have been to say the least unhealthy. My mother loves to cook and meat is a big part of her cooking the vegetables are even cooked in fat to add flavor she says. This was an obstacle for us, because we all get together at her house every Sunday. Instead of us bring our own food she stopped cooking the vegetables in fat which to be honest I never thought she would do..now not only are we eating healthier though everyone at the table is. In the end no matter how challenging being different can be the results are rewarding we are much healthier and feel great. I am really worried now of the drastic affect all of this destruction of nature is taking on our planet...people seem to forget that nature can survive without us, but we can not survive without it. I have a bad feeling that the world as we know it will soon change, and the only people we have to blame is ourselves for not making the proper changes in diet or respecting nature. We are a world of Greed, and a world of “its all about me” and I am afraid we are now seeing signs of the downfall of such behavior.

Posted by: Dana | September 26, 2007 10:31 AM

Just a quick note to address some of the excellent points made in the lengthy posts above.
Brian,
Brain growth began in meat eating primates before we were even making tools. We do not need to cook meat to make it edible. The processing involved
in modern meat production renders it inedible due to gut flora contamination. Wild game is rich in omega-3's, even more so if you eat the organs, especially the brain.
BSA/CJD are insignificant diseases. More people die of pneumonia or flu in one year than have ever died of CJD. I do not own a hummer. I do own land because I pay taxes every year on it. I have a deed for it. And you can't set foot on it without my permission. I also do not engage in senseless killing.

Dana,
I am glad your husband is healthier after switching diets. A vegan diet is a very healthy diet, just not the healthiest. I do not know Dr. Cordain, but I do know personally Dr. O'Keefe, and have had numerous conversations with him. He never mentioned baiting people into almost veganism by allowing some meat. I never encouraged anyone to eat dairy. There are some portions of Atkins that are very sensible. If you removed the fatty dairy and meat and encouraged more fruits and vegetables, it would be ideal.
I don't encourage diets high in fatty meat. I am always amazed at the notion that nature will balance out on its own. Absolutely, it will. After all of the herbivores have completely denuded the environment of anything green, including soybean fields, they will massively starve until they reach a balance point. That is unless they are ravaged by some disease. Their natural predators have been displaced, not by hunters but by all of us. They will not return, and you don't want them to because not only do they eat deer and rabbits, but they also eat vegans and little kids. You do not want a pack of wolves running around your neighborhood. We have replaced the natural predators. The only way we could restore close to the way it was before would be to pack up and leave the planet. I don't want to leave. I also like deer and rabbits, not just to eat. I have seen starving deer and I didn't like it.

best wishes.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | September 26, 2007 12:57 PM

Christopher,

You said, "BSA/CJD are insignificant diseases. More people die of pneumonia or flu in one year than have ever died of CJD."

As you know, Alzheimer's disease (as well as CJD) cannot be definitely diagnosed until after death, when the brain can be closely examined for certain microscopic changes caused by the disease.

To quote from a web article:

The full numbers of CJD victims aren't actually known because CJD is not a reportable disease like syphilis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) only surveys "death certificate" CJD, meaning if an end-stage CJD victim catches pneumonia and dies, this doesn't get tracked as a CJD case by the CDC, but is counted as a "pneumonia" death.

In addition, CJD victims have been known to be misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's patients, unless family members insist on an autopsy and examination of brain tissues. (In fact, a recent study by CJD researchers at Yale University found 14% of patients thought to have died of Alzheimer's actually died of CJD; a larger study from the University of Pennsylvania found a misdiagnosis rate of 5%, and estimated there may be 200,000 cases of CJD in the U.S. each year which are misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's.)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 27, 2007 08:28 AM

So what happened to you guys out there. Nobody have any fight left in um. Shame to see nobody's posted anything in a long time. Oh well, I'll get the ball rolling here. First off, I'm done argueing about this subject. Everyday millions of animals get slaughtered, tortured, beaten, and abused for no viable reason whatsoever. And the people who don't partake in that system are not bad people. In fact, the bad people are the controlling minds who herd animals into uncomprimising situations for their own benifits. I can't imagine any factory farmer who doesn't feel a sort of tyrant ruler among the animals under his capture. And I can't imagine any person who spends their time out there making mystery meet with their knives and guns and whatever other tools of destruction not in some way blinded to the truth. Ablsolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. We are no longer the archaic chambermaids of our fathers uninformed exsistence. We as humans have been given a very gracious message and it is up to us to understand it and embrace it. We don't have to live off of animals to survive and we don't have to live off the old system of food for thought to do so either. And we especially don't have to partake in that system to enjoy life and would be better off with the knowledge alloted to us from a diet free from that destruction. It is time for our message to spread far and wide and to the minds of impenatrable. If you are even a quarter passionate about this as me, remember from whom this message came and you will see in your future the window to make a change. Open it and the window will never close again.

For The Beast.

And For His Beauty.

And For Those Who Benifit.

To You I Give This.

A Liberative Opportunity.

Posted by: Brian Luznak MD (Just Kidding) | October 16, 2007 06:43 PM

Grow up!!! What do you expect meat to look like?

Posted by: Tom | October 23, 2007 09:51 AM