I loved the line about having too many "don't" to truly enjoy life. Yes, I think when you get to a certain point in your life you tend to relax a bit and are not as uptight (or...for some people, maybe the reverse is true!) Good for you for taking the plunge :)

How come you guys are trying to corrupt Trish Kelly off her vegetarianism? Vegetarians are a lot healthier, eh, as long as they don't wash their veggies too much and wash off all that B12-manufacturing bacteria, and get anemic--honest!

Trish is saving her veginity until she meets the right piece of meat, and you guys are just trying to seduce her.

'Specially you, logjam. Trish'll do just fine without a gut full of rotting dead animals.

This story reads like pure fiction-starting with the 'gift cow' and ending with the convenient warm fuzzy 'ride home'.

FYI...Barbless hooks are NOT the wonderful harmless fish catchers people make them out to be. They were designed for catch and release fishing so the biggest ones could be kept. Many fish are caught over and over again on these hooks. This affects mortality and hinders healthy spawning. Guilt-free on the salmon...I don't think so.

I bought some sockeye and springs at the dock in Masset yesterday, gutted them on the back of my pickup and gave all the heads and guts to the eagles. Froze them all except for one we ate right away, mmm, good. Guilt free. Truman, if we weren't supposed to eat meat, it wouldn't taste so good, know what I'm saying?

Climber, I know where you're coming from, but if you can't be persuaded by the animals rights issue, how about the global warming issue?

It takes more methane-producing bacteria replication (in your gut) to break down meat than it does to break down tofu and celery--and methane's worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Also, you need more powerful bathroom fans in your home, so you're using up a lot more electricity.

Be power smart. Don't eat meat.

Truman Green;

Your info. re: your global warming methane argument may apply to the digestion of certain red meats. But there are certain Omega 3 fats that our bodies require which are provided by salmon and other fish and seafood, a very healthy alternative to red meat. These nutrients are not found in the same healthy amounts in any other food.

Be smart. Eat fish.

Okay, I haven't done the research, apathysux, so I can't challenge you on that but hows about coming out and having a game of basketball with my almost 62-year-old self and see if the vegetarianism has damaged my health--or not.

Just kidding, apathysux--I realize that the evidence would be strictly anecdotal, and not conclusive.

Animal rights to me means killing them quickly and humanely. As far as global warming, I am so sick and fukin tired of hearing about it, I don't care, maybe its true, maybe its bullshit, whatever.

I suc at basketball...how about a round of ...oh forget it. I'm the first to admit I'm not as healthy as I would like to be, but I am working on it. (so i can eventually be a healthy 62 year old ;-) Vegetarianism can be good for you as long as you are vigililant about getting all the necessary nutrients and proteins your body needs. Fish is not necessarily excluded from a vegetarian diet.

BTW..climber, I also got some fish from the Masset dock yesterday...gutted, fish heads etc to the birds , sockeye on ice awaiting canning. Yummmm! and oh so good for you!

I seem to be missing something. There seems to be disconnect between the start of the story, and the end. Let me see if I got it right.

1) Horrified at the senseless slaughter of a pet calf, girl becomes vegetarian.

9) Many years later, she decides that her lifestyle is not luxurious enough, so she goes to some fancy-ass restaurant and pigs out on senselessly slaughtered mussels, prawns, tuna, lobster, and salmon.

My question is, when and why did she loose her horror of the slaughter?

ASP...
... do you feel the same way about spiders? Stepping on them is just senseless slaughter? ...Just curious.

apathysux ...

Do you senselessly stomp on spiders just because they are there?

Climber, don't be mad, eh, but I was only kidding about the meat-bacteria-binary fission-methane link, eh, (and bigger bathroom fans for more methane production--c'est-a-dire, farts).

And I'm only 95% sure that a slightly warmer planet, via the greenhouse effect, won't be as habitable for human beings. I gotta do the math on CO2 sinks and a diminishing of fuel (heating) costs that a slightly warmer planet would allow.

So far, though, it looks fairly decisive for the Al Gore persuasion.

Now, herbivores, undoubtedly eject a lot grosser volume of methane into the atmosphere, and they're decidedly uncarnivorous--unless they're being fed ground-up road kill and slaughterhouse detritus. Don't laugh. That's how "mad cow" disease originated--and possibly even "Creutzfeldt Jakob," which is basically the human analogue. (don't believe that "prion" crap--no pun intended.

Happy hamburgers!--oh no! E coli!

http://www.logicandsanity.com/archives/2006/08/not_so_serial.html There is the real Al Gore for you, what a p.o.s. he is. As if letting his woman try and censor/fuk with hard rock and heavy metal back in the 80s wasn't enough. Just type in, Al Gore hypocrite, on google, it never ends.

My, talk about falling off the wagon. There was almost the perception of a former drinker just being seduced with one glass of "good for you" red wine. Whatever eases the conscience....
I think there is a genetic link between food cravings/preference since not all people actually like the taste of meat. I'm a crusta-vegetarian (my take on leaving things with an endoskeleton [therefore blood] off my plate - crusta being the prefix for crustaceans) - and have been for over a decade now- and it has been more than easy for me because I never liked meat. Having said that, it is simply not sustainable for everyone on the planet to rely on such ecologically expensive sources of food as a daily staple - and we know that. We are maintaining our girth with growth hormones, antibiotics, and fish farms. Looking around, I can't say the economically priveleged have benefitted from their gluttony - guiltless or otherwise. Regardless of the humane treatment of our dinner victim before it hits the frying pan or grill - we need to do address the dietary elitism that is an inherent part of this whole guiltless gourmet concept.

There is no morality in choosing beef over soybeans - 25,000 gallons to produce one pound of beef according to Schlosser in "Fast Food Nation" - that's true...but are aware of the massive deforestation of the Brazilian amazon region to supply soybeans for the Chinese market?

bpither1 -

Global soybean consumption is projected to increase because meat consumption is on the rise.

http://www.agbioforum.org/v6n12/v6n12a03-sullivan.htm

Just finished reading it, asp. Fantastic link because it's a view from the inside of the soy industry. From the article:

"Soybean consumption is driven primarily by meat consumption in human diets, as soybeans are used primarily for animal feed."

More important areas for study: soybeans and phytoestrogens-xenoestrogens and phytoestrogens and breast cancer. Very interesting. Good googling prospects!

Also soybeans tend to lower male libidoes so go slow, you guys.

Not to mention: There's a $60 billion dollar per-year industry based on cholesterol-lowering claims. Soybeans play a large role, but are the claims based on research manipulating by industry PR. specialists?

No...asp. I don't senselessly step on spiders, just as I don't senselessly kill
the fish and seafood I feed my family. Diet is also related to your environment and where you live. These things have always been a staple food source on Haida Gwaii.
...And occaionally when a daddy-long-legs decides to land on me and scare the poop outta me it gets the foot. Otherwise I actually sweep them up and put them outside,
...anyway my point is that not all life on earth is equal. If we get into that discussion then you have to quit eating veggies, too. Plants bleed when you cut into them and are living creatures also. Where do you draw the line?

That soybean info is interesting, and yes, 'mad cow disease' in all its versions is from cannibalism. The human form has been found in primitive tribes who practice(or have practiced) cannibalism. Nice, eh? Let's feed herbivores their grazing friends. Wonder who the @#%@* was who thought that up.

I've always thought that veganism and vegetarianism (for ethical, rather than health/preference reasons) are an ethical cop out.

For a lot of domesticated animals, if all folks switched to being vegans, these animals would cease to exist! Why not make noise for better conditions for these animals?

and...

?
They were eaten, and appreciated to a high degree... much more if they had been eaten by any other animal! Not senseless by any definition.

And all this talk of suffering! Go watch some nature videos! Killer whales will chase a mom and baby whale for 6 hours until the baby can't keep up, then slowly torture and kill the thing, and then only eat the tongue! Plently of animals are ripped apart and eaten alive!

So, vegans, forget the fake soy meat (a lot of you are possibly allergic to it anyway), demand ethical meat! Factory farming sucks, lets do something about it! Support yer local farmers...

And hey, if you don't eat meat cause you don't like it, great! Vegetables are healthy! Teach your friends how to eat healthy veggies!

Maybe I've just heard 'senseless slaughter' comming out of the mouths of too many folks wearing leather shoes!

Shmendrick, I've given huge thought to the cruelty in nature too. In fact, one particular image sticks in my brain: a video of a coyote happily putting his teeth through the body of a squirming prairie dog. And as you say, those whales everyone loves so much, spend a lot of time just tossing various kinds of seals into the air for fun, before ripping them apart.

But, I always think, as humans, our challenge is to be a bit more thoughtful.

Good point re:'senseless slaughter'. Watch sea lions kill salmon for awhile, they will kill for hours at a time and only eat the stomachs, throwing the rest back into the ocean!
Most human hunters and fishers I know try to make use of as much of the animal as possible and then recycle the rest to scavengers.

Indeed, I agree.

I personally feel we should treat the animals we eat with the reverence they deserve, in exchange for the vital energy that they provide.

My rant is mostly for those who whine about animals missing out on their 'natural' lives while conveniently forgetting that for many, these lives are short, hard, lean, and end in a frenzy of violence and blood wrought by a pack of wild animals.

Of course the cat that tortures the mouse for a few hours before killing it doesn't understand the suffering of the mouse. And we humans, in some ways, can understand the suffering of our prey(except for fish, which science has proven to be free of pain and also capable of feeling pain), so we certainly have and obligation to be mindful of history of the meat that we eat, in my opinion.

shmendrick:
"except for fish, which science has proven to be free of pain and also capable of feeling pain),"

Are you saying fish don't feel pain or they do feel pain?

For me the issue with regards animal life is to treat them with respect, when killing for food to do so as humanely and quickly as possible to ease suffering and to then make use of as much of the animal as possible. I would imagine that there are also scavengers in the ocean who would eat the remains of the salmon thrown away by a sea lion, just as their are scavengers who will clean the bones of the kills of wolves and lions, etc.

In regards to the soy info and health. Non-GMO soy contains phytoestrogens that actually competes with endogenous estrogen - so that when there are high spikes of natural estrogen (such as during perimenopause) - the phytoestrogens (from soy and other plants and seeds - such as flax) reduce the symptoms associated with high untempered estrogen. In men, soy has actually been found to reduce incidences of prostate cancer. Considering Asian countries - such as China and Japan have neither a population deficit nor problems with high levels of estrogen - such as breast and ovarian cancer found here - its best not to buy into the propaganda doled out by the meat industry which as seen a decline ever since the whole mad cow thing and Oprah's criticism. However, just like any other food sourcing - be aware of genentically modified soy, corn, wheat etc (as in that article) - Monsato has already inked the deal to produce patent worth crap for consumption.

Animal, mineral, or plant? Creatures have nerves and hearts and lungs and move about on their own. Plants don't. Yes, plants live and die, but that does not make them creatures.

Gross! Yuk! Give me traditional vegi food like beans and tortillas anytime.

Since they are much worse then us, we must be ok. That would not wash on your Ethics 101 exam.

We can get plenty of delicious vital energy from plant foods, no need to show our animals how much reverence we have for them by slitting their throats.

As omnivores, humans as perfectly capable of living healthy, pleasurable lives with or without including animal flesh in our diet or lifestyle. We are not obliged to kill for food. We do so 'cause we like the flavour of the meat. Is that ethical? It don't feel right to me, but whatever turns your crank.

Tell that to the eskimos whose main staple is meat. Perhaps they should eat lichens? Name one primitive people, indigenous to wherever who have not depended on a certain amount of animal flesh in their diet. Meat has been a main staple in the human diet since they first crawled out of the primordial soup. This is just because it tasted good? ...hmmmm

Re: plants being creatures too....my point is if the argument is to not take life why limit it to animals. If it is wrong to take life in these forms why is not wrong to take the life of plants (or worse manipulate them into unnatural hybrids for our own pleasure), many of whom have a far greater life span than any other creature on earth.

My point is to be reasonable. It is difficult and expensive to maintain a vegetarian or more so a vegan diet in a properly healthy way, one in which your body is getting all of the necessary enzymes, fats and proteins it needs. (some necessary Omega 3 fats can only be found in adequate quantities in fish) A vegetarian diet is not a diet every one can follow, so some of us eat meat out of necessity.

and remember all you vegans & veggies, as you consume your bean sprouts you are eating the aborted babies of bean plants.

I can hear the mother's screams now . . .

I am awaiting PETA to take up the cause, or do they just practice "Pick & Choose" situational ethics ? ? ?

apathysux, you are right, but no, I did not tell that to the eskimos I meet in the Artic. But please explain what that has to do with us urban/agricultural people?

You are quite welcome to move up north, out of the agricultural zone, and take up a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I guess my use of the term 'we' was poorly chosen.

The argument is not to cause suffering. Strawberries don't squeal when you bite into them. Pigs do.

Well, I figure that once you assume worthiness to be an inhabitant of this particular planet, you have to let go of your moral indignation regarding the eating of plant foods. And, in spite of being a borderline misanthrope, I'm sticking with my view that we have a right to be here.

But stabbing and shooting and bashing animals to eat their flesh, well, that's not good, especially when it just makes us more cancer and heart-attack prone anyway.

However, meat-derived illness is not really a factor in a moral argument. Even if meat-eaters never got a single illness in their lifetimes--not even a cold--and every vegetarian died before the age of 18, that would still not be a moral argument in favour of eating dead animals, except road kill, and the bodies of all those lab chimpanzees and "oncomice" (transgenic murines) injected with tumour-causing oncogenes so that they may be sold as a research product to cancer researchers, who, by the way have discovered exactly nothing about treating cancer, except that it increases every year.

Oops, I shouldn't say "nothing" has been discovered about treating cancer. They still do surgery, radiation and chemotherapy with mutagen-based meds, and I bet they've improved their techniques. I should have said nothing new regarding prevention, but I'm off topic, here anyway.

This is a great essay. It's made me totally rethink my stance on cannibalism. I'm not so uptight about eating human flesh any more. I'm going to start farming humans. I figure: give them a decent life, kill them painlessly, and eat them with relish (literally and figuratively). After all, these farmed humans wouldn't exist at all if I didn't breed them to be eaten. Kill and eat others: it's nature's way, part of the natural cycle of existence. But, hey, I don't want to offend anyone's overly delicate moral sensibilities. So I'm only going to farm mentally handicapped humans: namely, those whose mental faculties are no greater than that of a cow. My mouth is watering right now. Thank you, Trish Kelly, you've shown me the light.

Yep that's right, killing and eating humans is the same as killing and eating cows, fish, and anything else with blood and a heartbeat.

FYI, cancer is not caused by the consumption of meat, it is caused by the consumption of all of the chemicals and man-made crap they feed farmed animals to make them grow faster and fatter. Wild meat, fish and shellfish(the main food discussed int he article) are NOT cancer causing.

I'm so very confused by the writings of this author.. While being a vegetarian for many years, and feeling compassion to other animals, why would one suddenly try to justify this objectionable practice?

While, yes, fishes do not feel pain exactly the same as we do (they are lacking the same pain-centers as us, this does not mean they do not feel any pain or discomfort, just not in the exact same way we do), it's still a slaughter. They're still free-living creatures, who are conscious and living

life for their own reasons, not unlike us, trying to increase their happiness and comfort and working decrease their unhappiness and discomfort.

This is not at all unlike the cows, chickens and pigs, who have been spared this demise from the author.. Why do they deserve this consideration, but not those living in the sea?

I also think it's misleading for some people to assume that eating sea-animals is a part of a vegetarian diet. This is untrue.

No vegetarian society i'm aware of considers fish and other sea animals to be 'vegetarian'. (The closest thing is a 'pesco-vegetarian', but 'pesco' is a clearly added prefix, since vegetarians do not eat animals.)

Worldwide, over 45 billion (yes, billion) land animals will be killed for human consumption this year.

The number of animals from the sea is close (over 40 billion.) Oddly, something like half will be fed to livestock (i'm assuming this includes aquaculture, where about 4lbs of 'feed' is required to produce 1lb of 'food'.) A good number of additional, unaccounted deaths (nearly the same amount as kept) are 'bycatch', who are 'undesired' and tossed back in the ocean, dying or dead.

While some groups might have lists of 'sustainable' sources of fishes for consumption, it's really a fallacy, since it surely isn't sustaining the lives of the fishes themselves...it's still nothing but a death sentence.

Please, Trish Kelly - i believe you were on your way to a more ethical life when you were vegan, and ask that you reconsider this, despite risking some social stigmas.

Perhaps, if more of us were to step away from the slaughter and stand up for our fellow Earthlings, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Dave Shishkoff
Canadian Correspondant
Friends of Animals
FriendsofAnimals.org

Trish is probably forever lost to us, Dave Shiskoff, but she's not the first one to lose her veginity, eh--or the first to lose it to herself!

I spent years being alternately disgusted with myself for chewing on dead animals, and rationalizing that the world's a pile of crap anyway, so why shouldn't I be as rotten as everyone else...and eat dead flesh. Trish has, hopefully temporarily, taken the latter approach.

i found it funny and experimental, as the author poses as someone who for the first time is challenging an internal religious dogma. i'm tempted to write back a "modest proposal" kind of caricature written using the latest western political rhetorical rationalizations of the past year - put forward echoing unchallenged into one way media like television. does the author not realize that civilization will not be able to sustain itself agriculturally in less than two generations because of the excessive impact of our pre-historic diet? what does she think will happen then? hmmmmm .... maaaaybe they will stop making Gucci handbags?

True. But the rainforest in Brazil is currently being consumed to create soy bean farms, so consuming is not guiltless. Soy is extremely modified, full of estrogen etc. There are middle grounds, sustainable animal proteins etc. Less meat is a good step for many of us, and more local veggies. I think we all agree we will not all be veggies and there is an argument for that. And not all of us can afford a local free range chiken. That is a good reason to go Veggie if ever there waas one.
But we have to stop consuming environmen for either and become capable of producing food from what we presently have, as infrastructure and farmland. Or we are toast. Which is also a great part of a diet. PB and J man.

DavidN - almost all the soy being grown in the Amazon is being used to feed livestock...vegans and vegetarians are actually combatting this by not participating.

The phyto-estrogens in soy are also actually beneficial - it is many times less powerful than other forms of estrogen, and it blocks our receptors, thus preventing the 'stronger' estrogens from even being absorbed.

I believe most of the studies on soy estrogen have been done on lab animals, and they are fed insane amounts of soy in order to achieve these results. A bit of soymilk or tofu will not have this result in humans.

As for GMO soy, the most popular soy milks are made from non-GMO soy, and most of the vegetarians and vegans i know buy organic tofu, etc, so this is a null point as well.. The vast majority of GMO soy in North America is consumed by farmed animals. Once again, vegans and vegetarians end up helping this situation, since we aren't eating the chickens, cows and pigs who are being fed this.

let's get one thing straight here. None of these methods of obtaining protein is sustainable. For the simple fact that there are too many people. Period.

Sea sourced protein might be "more sustainable" but ultimately fish-farming would be required to have any appreciable effect on providing food to the teeming masses. And that definitely is unsustainable.

No, the only thing that'll work long term is human population control AND consumption reduction. Until that happens we're just fooling ourselves on what's sustainable or not.

I have to agree Dave.
Except there has to be some victory in just reducing the intake of meat, and not having pure vegetarians constantly scolding the non. 10% would be huge. Eat better, local, less, and adopt the vegetarian diet by degrees if need be. It at least helps cut way back on meat, which is costly, and benefits the diet all around. We as a societty eat a phenominal amount of meat. I for one cook a lot of asian stuff that has little or no meat, and my impact is way less than it used to be. We have to reduce impact as much as we can, like peefer said.