" The conditions described probably would not exist if there were not so many people to feed. Simply complaining without a solution accomplished nothing other than emotional guilt. "

" You are absolutly right, there are to many people to feed. A lot of the problem comes from people eating fast-food, wich is most likely why you have "emotional guilt". Never think you can't make a difference. Every little bit counts! And what do you mean complaining w/o a solution? That is exactly what the article is all about, a solution! "

" If you really want animals to live a quality life before we eat them, then let them live in their natural environment and have hunters bring them in for dinner. The animals would live well, and people would gain a now-lost respect for the process of taking life for food. Of course, this suggestion will likely be overlooked since the usual agenda behind these types of letters is to ban meat. "

" I would agree but this is a issue that has been re-hashed many times. One must take into the direct cost to the farmer, which is passed on to us at the store. The control of sickness passed on animal to animal in open condition farming. Sorry it is not practical. Also to be considered is the amount of land required to accomplish this. "

" So once again the American farmer takes it in the shorts. Pass yet another law that mandates very expensive requirements for our farmers but foreign farmers don't have to follow. It's amazing our economy keeps going at all... "

" First of all, it takes far more grain to feed a cow intended for the market (hamburger, steak) than the #'s of people that same amt. of grain would sustain. Secondly, the refuse (methane) produced by cattle and other farm animals is a primary source of ground, water and air pollution, presently being researched by scientists looking for ways to reduce this massive amt. of pollution. Thirdly, humans do not need animal protein to survive; not at all. Dwayne, the writer IS offering a solution to the problem of suffering "livestock." A bill requiring humane and sane housing for these animals, in the least. Common Sense, you suggest; "the usual agenda behind these types of letters is to ban meat". Perhaps. Is that such a bad idea given that humans don't need it and animals would be happier not to supply it? Mike, there is more "sickness passed on from animal to animal..." in the warehousing of animals for meat, egg and milk production. Standing in their own excrement, breathing stale, stench filled air, in an environment cacaphonous w/the sounds of these animals' voices, filled w/antibiotics (proven to be detrimental to humans who consume these products). This IS where the most disease, virilence and sickness is produced; factory farms. Kevin, there are many items which can be "farmed." Wheat, soy, corn, millet, cotten, hops, any/all produce, fruit for consumption; in place of petroleum products, beer, saki and more. The "farmer" has already taken it in the shorts by agribusiness AND factory farms; it isn't the "little guy" who is the main perp in this sad situation. Facts! folks! and thank you Davina Rubin! "

" Anthropomorphism is a tactic commonly used in the discussion of this issue. While I completely agree that farm animals should not be abused, to use the word "inhumanely" is somewhat misleading. Where I would suffer standing in a coral all day, a horse does not. I think the word abuse is more appropriate. "

" Concerned Citizen: Thank you for admitting (in your response to me) your preference for banning meat. I do not think that banning meat is reasonable. I've got several million years of evolution behind me that say eating meat is OK. Meat is eaten in nature all the time, and even if people stop eating animals, the animals won't stop eating animals. Leave people alone, and let them decide for themselves. "

" Concerned Citizen...You’re way off on your bogus claims of grain/cattle yield. I’ve raised hundreds of head of cattle and have many friends who’ve raised tens of thousands of head... I’ve never feed them a single bucket of grain and the fact is the overwhelming weight gain on cattle has noting to do with large amounts grain feeding...cattle are grazers their primary diet is wild grass and grown alfalfa grasses. What grain that is feed is a very small fraction of the cattle’s weight which is put on by the stockyards, your cat and dog eat as a percentage of weight hundreds of times the amount of cattle.. None of these stockyards feed pure grain, that went out with the Titanic, cattle is feed all sorts of hybrid ag byproducts such as the residual of corn ethanol production but it totals a very small percentage, in weight and gain. The fact of the matter is cattle is it is very inexpensive compared to any other high protein food sources and it is the least impacting grazing feed stock animal. American cattle, along with Canadian and Brazilian feed the majority of the world ‘more cheaply’ than any other high protein food with the least impact on the environment as it requires no massive nets, ship processing plants, less loss of human live and it help prevent forest fires. Yours was the same bogus argument used by the invasion of vineyards advocates who arrived in the 1970s...had this country been smart enough not to follow these experts this valley would have remained truly beautiful as it once was. "

" If it wasn't for the vinyards, Napa Valley would be wall to wall houses by now... "

" Evenif we made laws banning the way animals are raised here doesn't mean we'd be putting a stop to it. Other countries would still do it. I would sign the petition but it is not just animals being enclosed small areas. There are innocent people in prisons locked inside a 8 foot by 6 foot cell with another person for 23 hours a day. That would be more torture to me than being beat. Nothing is going to change. We just need to be careful that we do not let another event happen like the Holocaust where humans are locked up like animals and tortured their whole lives. That is why our country and other countries need to make sure that radical terrorists do not get extremely powerful and threaten to take over the world at any point in time like the Germans almost did in World War 2. "

" Meat addicts, like cigarette smokers, alcoholics and the like, will always come up with specious arguments....which hold no water and do not stand the light of day. If you profit from selling meat, how else could you stand on this topic? If you're addicted to eating meat - even though it makes you FAT, your arteries CLOGGED, heart OVERWORKED and your intestinal system, which is geared to digest vegetable matter, FILLED WITH (on average in America) 5# LBS. OF REFUSE ON ANY GIVEN DAY, what else COULD you say about eating flesh? Excuses will always abound as those addicted to certain behaviours must 'explain' or excuse their archiac behaviors. Evolution is happening; you can't deny it. And cave like behavior WILL become a thing of the past. AND, who cares what other cultures are doing? So what? That's no excuse for ignorance. "

" Maet doesn't make a person fat. Chicken is a grea source of protien. Many other meats are as well. How do you think the ancient Greeks got so big and strong? From eating a lot of meat, not vegetables. It's sugar that makes a person fat. Soda's, candy, chocolate, fast food, and just being lazy. "

" Continuing, no matter what glenroy says, I have lived right next door to cattle ranchers who must own either 1) acres and acres of land in order to rotate the herds so as not to deplete and destroy the natural growth of grass/hay/alfalfa/wheat, etc. If this isn't done; there will BE NO food for the cattle. 2) One must have many acres, land which could be used to grow crops to feed PEOPLE, not cows. By having to rotate, even MORE acres are actually needed. 3)MEAT, RIDDLED WITH FAT, FILLED W/HORMONES, ANTIBIOTICS, HGH, etc. is BAD for your health, clots your circulatory system and stiffles the natural parastolisis process of intestines. We have looped and long digestive system, best suited for digesting fibrous matter, not muscle.

Glenroy, your argument that feeding cattle is expensive is just not true and you know it. The amts. of feed grain, the amount of land required to grow that (either naturally or farmed for the purpose of cattle feed) demands far more space than would growing grains for direct human consumption.

Sorry. "

" I meant to say to glenroy, " that feeding cattle is inexpensive..." Again, no, it is not inexpensive...it is costly and requires much more space to feed a head of cattle than a human being. Cut out the middle man (or bovine, in this instance,) and you'll get more bang for your buck! "