Was walking down the street today before work...

Hmmmm....why the anger man? People have a right to protest, and to be honest, I agree with them. I used to work at a restaurant that served foie gras and I was always disgusted by it. Have you seen how that stuff is produced? It's disgusting and just wrong. You can disagree if you like, but your violent message says alot about you. The fact that you would want to cause physical harm to people speaking their mind is scary. I hope I never end up working at the same place as you.

I am not a foie gras eater - having seen the birds being force-fed on a girlfriend's farm in France..

BUT, picketing a restaurant? Are these people MAD?

I'm confused? Why would this make them "mad"?

Because he has the same right to disagree as and with the protesters.

Disagreement is one thing, wishing to do physical harm to another because of their point of view is quite another.
I'm a more than a little put off by the hostility chefs tend to show toward people who do not agree with the experiential notion that it's OK to eat anything, regardless of the impact it has on the animal, its survival and sustainability, or the environment and diversity of the ecosystem.

Just because a thing has always been done, does not mean the practice should continue.

Wishing and doing are two different things. Very different. And Blueicus knows that. As does the law.

And which of you are Vegans? Members of PITA? Do I need to continue?

Every animal that is RAISED for consumption is mistreated, so that really isnt a valid arguement anymore. They all have fences keeping them from roaming freely like they did 100's of years ago, they cant run away to escape their eventual dimise and there is no way to get around that, THEY ARE FOOD. The fact that they are fed the way they are is just a fact of life, you may not agree with it but that doesnt make you right and me wrong, its a matter of opinion, and you know what they say about opinions....

Protesting something that isnt illegal is a waste of time and it may be a matter of trespassing. I say find out where they work/live Blue and get some fellow restaurant peeps and protest whatever you feel like outside just so they see what a disruption it is!!

Oh and just so everyone is aware, a large amount domestic Foie Gras, which isnt really Foie Gras is not made by force feeding or "Gavage" but by feeding the birds heavy fat corn diets. As they get closer to migration they eat more and store more fat, while this is naturally happening they are supplementing the amount of fat to make it more humane and replace the process with the natural instincts and biology of the animal. This inturn makes for a much fattier and larger liver naturally and then they harvest the birds when they reach a certain weight.

I understand passion for cooking and the artisanship it involves, I'm there too.
But get some perspective, man, it's a liver.

No one is going to die if people stop eating foie gras. A few farmers may have to retool and find creative ways of marketing their ducks and geese. Big deal.
Should have been done a long time ago.

I've visited the Hudson Valley Duck farm where they produce the foie. It's an ugly sight to see-and the workers who shove the big tube down the ducks' throats are not happy to be doing it.

I've got no opposition to naturally fatted duck or goose liver. Yes, they do gorge during the season and their livers get fat. Create an even higher demand and higher price for the natural product and people (who can afford it) will happily pay.

-completely untrue.

There are many sources of free range meat. Yes, it's more expensive, but heavily meat-based diets are not healthy anyway. Ever heard of the obesity epidemic?

If there was more work toward balance of the food supply and environmental balance in its production, there would be less waste, less environmental impact and fitter humans.

It is true, they are not allowed to follow their natural migration instincts, and have you ever seen how they slaughter "free range" animals? It EXACTLY the same as any other animal, the arguments are invalid no matter how you look at it its unnatural and therefore cruel.

Some breeders breed the ducks humanely some dont. As far as force feeding they all do .It should be noted however that the birds unlike us do not gag when being fed because they breath quite a bit different then us.
Also their esophegus and throat structure differs from us and other animals in the fact that it has a very strong protective covering, so much so in fact it does not feel the funnel in the throat. I am not pro or con but since there seems to be humane breeders, I dont think the whole industry should be protested against.:bounce:

When I traveled EWurope, I was at a poultry farm. the so called free range birds were in cages about 3x3 in size. The others had less space. How can 3x3 be free range? I questioned the manager he told me that as long as its bigger then the rest its ok?:lol:

You men, some of the good-hearted protesters might be... <whimper, gasp>... IGNORANT?

I would have to say that all of them, IMHO, are Ignorant.

I'm no authority on foie gras, and I don't know enough to be for or against it. But in response to the above, I say the issue is bigger than one food item. If I think you shouldn't eat a certain favorite food of yours, should you just agree and say "Okay, I won't eat that any more"?

I am neither. PETA is an American organisation which has TRIED to make inroads here in Europe - but most people think they are nutters.

I have SEEN foie gras being 'produced'. I made an adult decision based on watching how those poor animals were treated. I DO NOT EAT FOIE GRAS.

That doesn't mean I condone nutters standing outside restaurants to cause mayhem to the way people make money.

UNTIL the production is banned... it is perfectly legal to serve the stuff.

Foie gras is really popular in Quebec, I ate at Martin Picard's Au Pied de Cochon and it was quite delicious. He devoted one of his TV show last year to Foie Gras despite the controversy, eating duck or duck liver, you end up killing the animal one way or the other.

I now live in Japan where I ended up eating whale for school lunch. Would I buy whale meat at the super market? Probably not, but I would eat it again if it's offered to me at school.

The perception of food is different from one country to the other. Our sensibility is different I guess.

I had foie gras in France once. I didn't care for it. I just haven't been able to like any liver of any kind.

But will I tell someone else they should not eat a certain food? Keep your hands off my pets, ok. That i do ask, but the following is not all that different . . .

Don't drive a car because you might hit a deer or run over a lizard. Don't dig up carrots because you might cut a worm in half. Don't use dish detergent because it kills bacteria. Don't live in a modern house because animals, whether big or microscopic, were killed by the construction of that house. Living in a modern house also blocks critter habitat that might have been there had you chosen to live in a tent instead . . . but even tents make life harder for some critters that lived in that soil . . .

Get off your high horse if you imagine that you can live without killing any critters. You do have some choice in deciding which animals to kill and which not to. You can make some difference.

But just by being human, you are going to be responsible for animals being killed. Is it worse for that duck being killed than for that grub you chopped in half while digging in your garden? How do you rationalize that? I'd be really interested in how anybody claims not to kill animals.

My point is, if we are to be considered guilty for harming or killing animals, we all are guilty no matter how we choose to live. There are different ways, but we all kill animals!! Certain things get paid attention to, while others are not. So I killed a duck and you killed a slug . . . am I worse than you are?

When we build tunnels, bridges and high risers, and instigate war people are killed????

I love this! My husband is an avid hunter and quite a few people have a problem with hunting. Don't know why. Humans are natural hunters and gatherers. It's as much a part of human behavior as migration is for birds. I'm pretty sure wild deer are as "free range" as you can get. I made meatballs with part of one tonight ;) Keep in mind, that steer that made a pretty good ribeye, purchased at your local store, was not any less killed than the deer I had!

Let's be honest. Animals taste good. We like to eat them as a general rule. I'm not saying I agree with the force feeding though. I couldn't do it, and quite frankly feel sorry for the people getting paid to.

I personally wouldn't eat foie gras, but who am I to judge. I also won't eat veal, even though I know it's supposed to be wonderful! Just my decision after growing up around dairy farms.

Do those people have the right to protest, yes. I however think they should find something more productive to do with their time. People are out of work and can't afford to feed their kids. How about we find a solution to that instead of making sure the duck's crop isn't overfilled.

As to the bit about PETA being "nutters", hope that's right...they are. There's a sign up a few miles from my house that says, "Meat Kills" You have to be kidding me. PETA at their best. Like OregonYeti said, we all kill things. Smaller doesn't equate less important.

It's funny how come to the defense of some animals and not to the defense of others. Other than PETA you don't see many people coming to the defense of chickens. If you saw how that Perdue chicken was raised you'd think twice. Cages barely big enough for them to turn around, stacked so that chickens end up crapping on each other, beaks sheared off so they don't mutilate themselves, other chickens or the farmers. At least most foie gras ducks get to roam around so what. The term "free range" has come to be meaningless in regards to the chicken business. It sure doesn't mean what most people think it means. It definately isn't a bunch of chickens roaming around a barnyard, scratching away at the ground. Or let's talk about beef cattle packed into feed lots so tightly they can barely move, or milk cows, in large industrial farms, that rarely, if ever, go out to pasture, have their tails docked, are packed so tightly together that disease runs rampant, increasing the need for antibiotics. Their life span is usually only a 1/3-1/4 or pasture raised milk cows. Then we can talk about fish farming, etc. Sorry, but I find in more than a little disingenuous to get all worked up about foie gras but stay complacent in regards to a whole host of other farming practices that are much, much worse.

As far as PETA is concerned I have many issues with the propeganda and misinformation they spread. They will often focus on farms that have a history of abusive practices and use them to condemn the whole industry. That would be like someone finding restaurants that have failed health inspections and using them to condemn the whole restaurant industry. And then there is ALF (Animal Liberation Front). They have proven themselves to be domestic terrorists by vandalizing restaurants and processing plants, and videotaping a chef's family then using it to make thinly veiled threats. And while the constitution gives them the "free speech" right to protest, what they are really doing is blackmailing restaurants by indirectly stating "take foie gras off the menu or we will protest until we scare all your customers way and bankrupt you and all the people who work for you." And don't think for a minute that that is not their underlying intentions when they protest an individual restaurant.

Rant over!

Any extremists, whether it be in the name of stopping animal cruelty, or political terrorist groups, are inherently dangerous. I'm talking aboout only the extremists here.

Not the people who have very rightly stopped (or at least limited) the testing of cosmetics on animal. Some horrendous testing was done (still is?).

And the fur trade - if you are not going to utilise the animal entirely, and use it just for its fur and leave the carcasse bloody on the ground, and not despatch it mercifully but club it to death, obvious example - baby seals. Don't do it. Kill cleanly or don't kill at all. If the fur is a byproduct of respecting the animal by using it as fully as possible - then use that too.

Re Foie - personally, I won't eat it. But that is a choice I have made, not from it being thrust upon me by anyone else. If someone told me to stop eating anchovies - well, my language would make you blush.

The blackmail aspect of what those people do is criminal.

By definition, I'm a "strict constructionist." In short, I believe that The Constitution means what it says. It's not a "living document" where Diane Feinstein has the right to define just what exactly goes into my gun cabinet.

I believe in free speech. I also believe in a saying popular at the time of The Framers. They claimed that the 'tree of liberty' needed to watered occasionally with the blood of patriots. You have to stick your neck out for freedom, it isn't free.

When I ride my motorcycle I don't give a flip what you think. I make the payments. I vote. I don't make fun of the "faux teak wood" in your Lexus.

During the mid-1970's, I rode with other bikers to repeal Wisconsin's helmet law by "violating that statute." I rode openly on public streets without my helmet, in deliberate violation and contempt for the law of the land.

In so doing I utilized many aspects of The Constitution. I assembled peacefully. I used free speech. I did not allow any errant British soldiers to sleep in my home.

I now ride free from governmental intrusion.

I suggest the same course of action here. Organize. Vote. Boycott. Send a handful of goose feathers and a tea bag to your elected representative. If nothing else it really ticks off liberals when you have actually read The Constitution and the Federalist Papers and you won't go away.

YouTube - We The People Stimulus Package

YouTube - Harley-Davidson: Live by it.

Do they protest for electric shock on cows or calfs, or slitting chickens throats, or hitting cows over the head? All of these things are not the best, in fact force feeding the duck is not as bad as they do not chew anyway and it does not seem to bother them.

How abot putting a lobster in boiling water? I think I will form a protest to that on Palm Beach.:crazy:

I noticed on the Harley video that all the riders were wearing helmets. Tourist I agree with your right not to wear a helmet if you don't want to. I don't feel the government has a right to step into our lives like that and dictate how we live, if it doesn't affect other people. My personal views on helmet wearing are that anyone who doesn't wear one while on a motorcycle is an idiot, but I won't try to stop those people from making stupid choices. As for the Constitution on being a living document, then I assume you don't believe in all the admendments that came after ratification. As for the second admendment well let's look at the word infringed. Today it means " to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another" this from Webster's Online dictionary. But you will also notice that it's derivation means to "break or crush" and the obsolete definition means "defeat or frustrate" Even the modern use of the word leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but which definition do you use? If you follow the the older definitions then it seems to me that the second admendment doesn't stop the government from limiting what arms we can carry as long as they do not completely take away that right. BTW, I am not anti-gun, just pointing out the inherent flaw in the pro-gun movement's argument.

No, not really. You have speed limits that you must obey or get ticketed for. You must follow the "rules of the road" or get ticketed. You must wear a seat belt in your car, or get ticketed (my belief here is the same as helmets, not the government's place to tell people over 18 they must wear seat belts, but you are an idiot if you don't). So, no you don't "ride free." Anyway, none of this really is relevant to the issue so I will move on.

What this comes down to is "free speech." If you want to take the constitution literally, like you want to, then anyone can say anything about anyone, regardless of whether it is true or not. There would be nothing stopping me from telling all sorts of lies about you. Lies that could get you fired from your job, arrested, that make your wife leave you and your kids despise you. But that is not the case. Free speech can and must be limited to some extent. And as I stated in my previous post, while these groups may seem "peaceful" in the picketing of restaurants their deeper motives are malicious in their intent. It is blackmail and extortion, other forms of "free speech" that have been made illegal.

BTW, I am a Centerist for the most part with some very liberal views and some very conservative views

Ed, or how about eating raw (live oysters). Can't be pleasant being slowly digested! :cool:

Pete & Tourist: You guys both need to 1. read the constitution, and 2. spend some time with the other writings of the founding fathers. Maybe then you'll understand the law of the land.

Example: Operating motor vehicles (which includes motorcycles) is not a right guaranteed by the constitution or any other law. It is a privilege extended by the several states, who can control it any way they want.

And, Pete, the 2nd amendment contains the words, "congress shall make no law....." That's pretty cut and dried. As to what it means on a practical level, read, among other things, the Federalist Papers. And the various publications dealing with Jefferson's correspondence. One thing that will immediately become apparent is that the constitution sees no difference between ownership of a fowling piece and an M-60.

The fact is, and despite the obfuscation constantly thrown out by liberals, it isn't difficult at all to understand what the constitution says, and what the founding fathers intended.

Time for a beer summit don't you think? Get your last words in and please make it something nice.