The Local Herbivores aims to promote a vegan lifestyle in order to protect animals and better the planet, as well as human health and well-being.
Formed in February, the group serves to shed light on veganism, making it accessible and convenient. Danielle Solberg, the local organization’s founder, said she has been vegan for a little more than a year.
“My husband and I were sort of lonely, as there weren’t as many like-minded people, so we figured that there should be a community and to use it as a platform to raise awareness to veganism,” Solberg said.
There are certain misconceptions Solberg hopes to dispel, and she and the rest of the group are able to do so through the Local Herbivores. Solberg dispelled the myths that someone can’t be vegan and healthy or get proper proteins and veganism is for rich people.
Joey Foote, the treasurer of the Local Herbivores, said he joined the community to promote the vegan lifestyle. He has been a vegan for about as long as Solberg.
“The more you get involved with the activism side of this and understand the three pillars of this — you do it for the animals, for the environment and for your own health — the more you get involved with this, the easier it is to be a vegan,” Foote said. “You’re not doing it because you feel like you have to, you’re doing it because you want to, which is the big step.”
Clyde McCaw | Argonaut
Danielle Solberg, the Local Herbivores founder, speaks to a University of Idaho student during the club’s tabling event Monday in the Idaho Commons.
The Local Herbivores hold demonstrations throughout the school year, including raising awareness toward ethical issues involving animals and the environment.
On Monday, they tabled in the University of Idaho Commons, educating students on the practices of the company Canada Goose, a clothing brand specializing in winter wear.
Next Monday, the group will discuss human and animal rights in the Idaho Commons.
They have participated in several campaigns, as well. Recently, they worked with Vandal Dining Services to offer vegan options at the Hub and the Grid, which are now available.
Local Herbivores also put on various events, such as Vegan Bacon Day, where they hand out free samples.
The also conduct Veganize Your Dorm, where they hand out free products, such as animal-friendly cleaning products or make-up.
The group is holding a vigil Nov. 3 in collaboration with Moscow, ID Animal Save, which Solberg also started.
Local Herbivores holds meetings at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesdays in the Crest Room of the Commons. Anyone interested in veganism is encouraged to sit in during a meeting to ask questions.
Clyde McCaw can be reached at [email protected]
Tosed De Ceased
You and husband will forever be remembered as the extraordinary souls in this part of the country of Idaho who care about the Best of Life ----- for all men/women and the collective lives of animals/bugs ----- who/that have an everlasting "lifely" impact to the ever-splendor of living in this grand earth of ours, that we call home. A awesome job started ......May it continue in perpetuity.....
stewart lands
The philosophy of veganism is limited to two noteworthy goals--the first is to reduce animal suffering; the other to reduce environmental impact with the understanding that what is good for the environment is also good for all of its creatures, including, of course, its animal inhabitants. Eliminating animal agriculture, as mainstream vegan thought demands, has the potential to make significant strides toward both outcomes. However, this is not to suggest that mainstream vegan philosophy is the best or even the most logical dietary approach to achieve these goals. To clarify, veganism assumes that any vegetable item must also be animal friendly. The truth is, some plants require more resources than others to produce and transport. Growing any crop requires that wild lands be converted to barren soil, with the result that habitat is lost and every wild creature upon that landscape is destroyed. Some crops require much more land than others and therefore result in unnecessarily large numbers of animal lives lost. Some require more water, resulting in the excessive diversion of water from sensitive aquatic systems with the result that populations of fish and amphibians are in collapse, world-wide. Others require huge amounts of energy to transport across the planet. Despite all of these concerns, most vegans still think anything plant must be OK, as if there exists a line between plant and animal that somehow distinguishes between good food and bad. Yet cashews and almonds require more water to grow than does chicken, and bananas imported across the seas contribute to global climate change. Fruit such as kiwi and orange require a lot of land relative to less destructive options. Nevertheless, extravagant options such as these feature prominently in listings for "favorite vegan recipes". As it stands today, mainstream veganism suffers from the same lack of vision for which it criticizes omnivorism--namely, the willingness to overlook animal and environmental impact in order to please the taste buds. The second point of improvement lies in regard to the sustainable consumption of wildlife resources. Many reject hunting and fishing as unnecessary and cruel without ever considering the impact of each in comparison to the option of agriculture. To clarify, an animal hunted is immediately replaced by another that would otherwise perish for lack of resources. Nature always breeds more animals than habitat can support and the rest die of starvation or disease. To consume the excess in a sustainable manner has no impact on animal populations and no impact upon the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Agriculture (even plant agriculture), on the other hand, kills every individual, of every major species, on any landscape converted to that purpose. Fields of beans or broccoli are not developed from barren dirt, and wherever they exist the myriad wild creatures that once inhabited these spaces are destroyed. In fact, they and every generation descended from them that might otherwise have been expected to inhabit the land are forever eliminated. Consider the millions of acres of forest, wetland and grassland converted to exotic monoculture serving no species besides man; consider the billions of pounds of chemicals dumped into the soil, water and air, and consider the trillions of gallons of fresh water diverted from sensitive aquatic systems, all for agricultural purpose. Agriculture is today recognized to be the foremost cause of extinction, world-wide, as well as the single greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly, meat production bears responsibility for the greater part of this damage, but this does not alter the fact that where we may consume, in a well-regulated and sustainable manner, some portion of those wild populations inhabiting undisturbed lands, then we have the responsibility to do so in order to avoid the even greater animal death and environmental impact that results from agriculture of any sort--even plant agriculture. Of course, the human population is too large to exist entirely off wild fish and game, but where wild foods are available it makes sense to utilize them fully. Hunters in the state of Tennessee consume over 500,000 squirrel, annually. Add to this the millions of deer, pronghorn, elk, turkey, geese, pheasant, and innumerable fish taken across North America, and it becomes apparent that wild game effectively provides tens, if not hundreds of millions of meals each year. It is a mistake to criticize the rural resident who supplements his diet with fish and game considering that his alternative is to reduce the acreage of wild land available to native species in order to grow his own meal. Putting all prejudices aside, we should encourage those who would step off the back porch and into the woods to hunt deer or turkey rather than drive fifty miles in each direction to the nearest grocery store in order to purchase their meal from the vegetable counter.
Winston Oswald-Drummond
Hey I know your comment is pretty old but I found it interesting and you brought up some popular oppositions to veganism. However, they are misguided. Firstly you claimed that vegans assume that any vegetable item must be animal friendly. However, that is not at all the case. What most vegans acknowledge is that it is in general much more animal friendly than eating animal products. Nobody is arguing that vegetable production is perfect, just that it is a preferable alternative. Also, it's actually pretty irrelevant whether or not eating veggies is worse for animals because the large majority of crops are grown in order to feed livestock, which are used for meat and dairy consumption. This means that either way, the most compassionate option would still be veganism. This point applies to any negative thing you can say about crop production (such as water/energy usage or CO2 emissions). You also imply that there is no line between plants and animals. This sounds to me like the decision-point fallacy (also known as the continuum fallacy), which is arguing that because there is no distinct point separating 2 positions on a continuum, those positions are not meaningfully different. Now one could argue that there is actually a distinct point of difference which is that plants cannot feel pain or suffer in the same way that most animals can. Similarly, they do not have the same capacity to feel pleasure. One could also say that they aren't on a continuum at all but rather different branches on the evolutionary tree. What is important though is that it doesn't matter if this point exists, because plants and animals are still clearly different, so asserting that they are essentially the same because they are on a spectrum would be fallacious. You went on to talk about how bad it is for many animals in the wild already, so killing them doesn't really change anything. I'd be interested in seeing your evidence to back up your specific claims but regardless it does not make sense to justify one bad thing because of another bad thing. You also mentioned that agriculture is currently recognized as the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions, but what you will find is that is largely due to "animal agriculture." Meaning that the issue lies in factory farming (methane produced by cattle and of course the crops needed to feed livestock). You do acknowledge that meat production causes most of the problems in this area, but what you neglect is that we won't need to continuously deforest new land to keep feeding ourselves. If we stopped raising livestock we would have more than enough crop supply to feed the planet. This is not the case with meat production. Because of this, we are not avoiding "the even greater death and environmental impact" by eating meat, we are causing it. I do not disagree that people consume a lot of wild game meat, but it doesn't matter. Just because people do something doesn't make it right, so I'm not sure why you even brought that up. You also have been making a lot of hasty generalizations about vegans. I don't think the goal is to "criticize" people necessarily but rather their ideas. Finally, it is also important to note that you neglected another very important part of veganism, the various health benefits that come with a vegan diet. Being vegan doesn't just help animals and the environment, but people too. With that said, sorry if this was a bit much. I wouldn't normally bring any of this up but since you posted somewhat of a rebuttal first I assumed you were happy to participate in discussion and I do enjoy talking about these things. I want to know the truth and do the right thing so if you still feel that I am mistaken I am happy to hear your response. Anyways thanks for being able to civilly voice your concerns.