David Hammond wrote:If one is opposed to the consumption of living things, then that person would be understandably opposed to eating living things whenever possible. No shock there.

Ummm ... aren't plants living things, too?

nr706 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:If one is opposed to the consumption of living things, then that person would be understandably opposed to eating living things whenever possible. No shock there.

Ummm ... aren't plants living things, too?

Dave knew what I meant, but you're right, I could have been more precise. For "living things" substitute "animals."

I wonder if farm raised lion has a different texture and flavor as opposed to wild thus not giving one the true lion taste.

Elfin wrote:I wonder if farm raised lion has a different texture and flavor as opposed to wild thus not giving one the true lion taste.

Venison, quail, partridge, bison, elk and other "game" served in U.S. restaurants are also (with very few exceptions) farm-raised. If wild is the "true" flavor of a food, then we don't actually get much of it here (fish being the exception).

For me it's a matter of taste. If its good I'll probably eat it, but cat has no turn on for me whatsoever so 'eh. Here's a question I've always wondered. Where are these lion farms? I've heard downstate Illinois and Wisconsin but have never seen any evidence of one anywhere, online or in travels. I hate PETA but I'm for the well being of beautiful creatures not meant to be eaten, unless being offered something cute or king but also indigenous with tribal ties by those very people. Canadian seal anyone? But even if there are actual "lion farms" and the meat isnt coming from canned hunts in Africa, do we really think they're living a good life roaming the land eating quarter hinds of beautiful fresh slaughtered cow brought over from the local purveyor down the block before beheading?

These arent some chickens you can shoo to the other side of the playpen. I'd bet their in cages similar in size to some of those found down in Pinckneyville eating the equivalent of the same type of food served there. I haven't heard anything worthwhile to make me seek it out so I wouldnt go out of the way to try it. Might not even do so if presented at a picnic or whatever but more so because it's probably just novelty meat not worth the stomach space.

The ethical answer seems easy: the lion would eat me, so of course I would eat it.

This discussion came to mind when reading L.V. Anderson's review of Dana Goodyear's Anything That Moves, at Slate.com. This paragraph of the review really struck a chord . . .

Goodyear is at her analytical best when she takes on the question of why we eat certain animals but not others. In a chapter that recounts an undercover sting on a Japanese restaurant illegally serving whale meat, Goodyear examines the cultural and ethical assumptions that underlie Americans’ horror at eating animals we deem noble. In response to a marine conservationist’s claim that the only thing worse than serving whale meat is serving human flesh, Goodyear writes, “It smelled of unexamined xenophobia: only a sub-human monster would eat another person.” She also criticizes the foodies who want to have it both ways: Eat whale meat (or other rare ingredients) while avoiding the ethical ramifications of their decisions.

=R=

Unexamined xenophobia...yes! Let us reconsider cannibalism!

Many cultures avoid eating both "noble" and "ignoble" creatures. The cow in India would be a prime example of a "noble" beast that is not eaten but honored, whereas the pig in Jewish and Muslim traditions is not eaten and is considered "ignoble," based largely, I'm guessing, on perceived lack of proper personal hygiene.

What could be more sustainable than Soylent Green?

In general I would never eat any animal that was endangered, unless there was some guarantee that it had outlived it's useful reproductive lifespan or was otherwise not capable of helping sustain the species. Other than that I'll eat just about anything.

David Hammond wrote:

toria wrote:I would not eat it or any exotic meat.

....

My philosophy of the food life is that the more omnivorous you are, the more open you are, the more likely you’ll be to find interesting content to write about -- as a writer, that's what I want. It’s rare to find an open-minded person who refuses to eat anything but the un-exotic, or a closed-minded who is eager to try food from, say, Burma or Samoa or some other "exotic" locale. Who knows what comes first, the mindset or the appetite, but the very act of taking something foreign or "exotic" into one’s body involves characteristics of trust and curiosity that I tend to admire in people and which I emulate.

Open your mouth and your mind will follow.

. Really. My being a vegetarian for ethical reasons makes me somehow narrowminded? Now I know why I stopped reading and following LTH Forum as regularly as I used to. As a vegetarian I found most of the discussion here pretty useless. But I always had the impression that people with restricted diets were somehow considered as lesser persons by the 'cognoscenti' of the group. This just proves it.

I find that one of the key values of LTHForum is that ideas can be thrown out there, discussed, rejected by some, embraced by others. Thereby, ideas are refined. I took a somewhat extreme position based on my stated belief, "Open your mouth and your mind will follow." I'm glad you responded, and that others have questioned the validity of this belief, and based on all those responses I'm shaping and rethinking my position. I'm not afraid of disagreement -- and I don't think anyone who posts here should be, or they won't be posting here for long.

nr706 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:If one is opposed to the consumption of living things, then that person would be understandably opposed to eating living things whenever possible. No shock there.

Ummm ... aren't plants living things, too?

Actually, in Jainism, you can't eat anything that kills the whole plant -- like onions and garlic. You are limited to plants' leaves and fruit. So there are some who take the "living things" to that length.

As Cathy2 noted, and nr706 confirmed, there was lion at the 2011 LTH Picnic -- loin, in fact, which made it linguistically as well as culinarily amusing -- lion loin.

While I tasted the lion, I would hesitate to eat any high-end carnivore on a regular basis. I'm a fan of plant eaters, domestic or wild. Things that eat other animals make me cautious, as that's when you start getting into potential health issues. (Bears, for instance, also carry trichinosis -- it's not just pigs.) But in reliably safe situations (that is, domestically raised or carefully processed), I'll sample things that I would never consider staples.

For those who enjoy sampling wildlife, Don Quijote Restaurant in Valparaiso, IN, has an all-game buffet for a couple of weeks every year. I've only been once, and that was enough, but I managed to add several new items to the list of crazy things I've tried over the years.

Cynthia wrote:For those who enjoy sampling wildlife, Don Quijote Restaurant in Valparaiso, IN, has an all-game buffet for a couple of weeks every year. I've only been once, and that was enough, but I managed to add several new items to the list of crazy things I've tried over the years.

Coincidentally, while I was at Czimer's, a call came in from the owner of Don Quijote -- they source a lot of the menu from Czimer's.

Cynthia wrote:

nr706 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:If one is opposed to the consumption of living things, then that person would be understandably opposed to eating living things whenever possible. No shock there.

Ummm ... aren't plants living things, too?

Actually, in Jainism, you can't eat anything that kills the whole plant -- like onions and garlic. You are limited to plants' leaves and fruit. So there are some who take the "living things" to that length.

A piece about Jainism I produced for WBEZ a few years ago: http://www.wbez.org/episode-segments/exploring-jainism

It's good to have principles, but sometimes you have to get that really cute pair of leather shoes.

I'm glad you raised this subject; I think this is an interesting discussion, and I'd be glad to see it continue, not least because I haven't figured out what I think about it yet. I was particularly intrigued by comments concerning whether carnivores do or don't tend to make for good-tasting meat. I can't say quite why yet, before thinking about it more, but right now I think carnivore/not carnivore is a line I'm inclined to stay on one side of, which puts dogs and cats on the same side as lions for me. But then, horses aren't carnivores, and I've no interest in trying horsemeat either. I wouldn't say "nobility" is the test--not for me, anyway. I suppose it's a hodgepodge of cultural traditions and the degrees to which individuals are inclined to hew to them.

As for the ultimate in consumption taboos for humans, I recommend a reading of "In the Heart of the Sea" to anyone who feels up to taking a really hard look at it.

Katie wrote:I was particularly intrigued by comments concerning whether carnivores do or don't tend to make for good-tasting meat. I can't say quite why yet, before thinking about it more, but right now I think carnivore/not carnivore is a line I'm inclined to stay on one side of, which puts dogs and cats on the same side as lions for me. But then, horses aren't carnivores, and I've no interest in trying horsemeat either. I wouldn't say "nobility" is the test--not for me, anyway. I suppose it's a hodgepodge of cultural traditions and the degrees to which individuals are inclined to hew to them.

I think the carnivore issue is one of the more intriguing and challenging aspects of the issue...yet many of us regularly eat those creatures who eat other creatures: catfish eat just about any damn thing, as do shrimp, crabs, etc.

I've chosen not to eat animals for health reasons. I adore my dog. She is fed raw meat. I've prepared animals for friends and family to consume. I'm surprised at how many here have drawn the line on animals that can be eaten. Pig, dog, horse, elephant, lion, bear, fatty liver of a goose, or human (not murder, but you get my drift) it's all the same. I'm sure there are ways to prepare humans to make them taste good and we all know there are ways to prepare chicken to make it taste awful (boneless, skinless breasts come immediately to mind for the later).

Now I would rather all animals prepared for food live healthy lives and die without fear or suffering, but I know that just isn't happening.


And somehow, I'm certain David does not assume that people who won't put just anything in their mouths are close-minded.

As a reminder, enjoy one of my favorite episodes of the Twilight Zone, To Serve Man, TGIF! http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2866521881/

pairs4life wrote:I'm surprised at how many here have drawn the line on animals that can be eaten. Pig, dog, horse, elephant, lion, bear, fatty liver of a goose, or human (not murder, but you get my drift) it's all the same.

In my opinion, when you're talking about endangered animals, or animals close to being declared endangered, they're not at all the same. I understand why some (not all) African country governments allow some of this hunting - some honestly believe it is for conservation (mostly funding conservation efforts), some unfortunately do it to line the pockets of local politicians. But I would hope that when people choose what they eat, they at least consider the sustainability of the species.

BR wrote:But I would hope that when people choose what they eat, they at least consider the sustainability of the species.

I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that it's a good idea to consume unsustainable species. We're all conscious eaters here (I hope).

Cynthia wrote:

nr706 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:If one is opposed to the consumption of living things, then that person would be understandably opposed to eating living things whenever possible. No shock there.

Ummm ... aren't plants living things, too?

Actually, in Jainism, you can't eat anything that kills the whole plant -- like onions and garlic. You are limited to plants' leaves and fruit. So there are some who take the "living things" to that length.

I was just listening to a piece on NPR a few hours ago and the restrictions on onion and garlic by certain vegetarian folks was mentioned and for the life of me I couldn't see why - now I know!

Thanks!

I will take the unpopular stance on this site. As the "supreme being" on this planet, the answer seems obvious.

No.

We have grown, as a species, beyond hunting and foraging for the sake of survival alone. We have developed our skills and intellect to the point of raising highly sustainable animals that more than meet our needs (especially in the geographical areas that post on this site).

Simply sampling a type of meat for the sake of saying "yeah, I did it" is reckless and irresponsible, IMO. I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, and those who know me here would probably agree, but I cannot fathom a reason that a responsible food consumer would support the harvesting of a rare and majestic animal such as a lion. Emphasis on "rare" - meaning not sustainable for the every day man.

edit: specific to this thread, I think it is important to consider the source of the meat. This business/owner has been in trouble, multiple times, for the illegal harvesting/selling of exotic game. This, to me, plays a factor as to whether or not I would consume exotic game. If the person slinging that meat is a notorious poacher (is there a better descriptor?) then I am completely comfortable saying no.

spanky wrote: I cannot fathom a reason that a responsible food consumer would support the harvesting of a rare and majestic animal such as a lion. Emphasis on "rare" - meaning not sustainable for the every day man.

“Rare” means “not sustainable for every day man”? So the only food you’d consider eating would be food that is sustainable for the everyday man. I think we need a tighter definition of “everyday man,” but if you mean “everyman,” or "most everyone," then there’re many foods (specifically proteins, and that’s what we’re basically talking about) that are not sustainable by that definition. In fact, if the food is actually eaten by “everyman,” then that’s almost a guarantee that it’s going to become extinct. To take just one of many examples, blue fin tuna is on “every” sushi menu because "everyone" eats it, thus its demise is predicted by 2025 or thereabouts. Aside: ironically, the fact that Fukushima radiation is turning up in the flesh of this fish is causing people to avoid eating it…which means radiation poisoning of some blue fin tuna might actually lead to further continuation of the species.

spanky wrote: edit: specific to this thread, I think it is important to consider the source of the meat. This business/owner has been in trouble, multiple times, for the illegal harvesting/selling of exotic game. This, to me, plays a factor as to whether or not I would consume exotic game. If the person slinging that meat is a notorious poacher (is there a better descriptor?) then I am completely comfortable saying no.

Rich Czimer did five months and 5.5 years of probation. He’s under intense scrutiny. What he did was wrong, no doubt, but that doesn’t mean that what he’s doing now is outside legal parameters. But maybe the law doesn’t matter in this argument. What seems to matter is the “majestic” nature of the beasts consumed, but I can’t buy that argument logically though it might be acceptable aesthetically. In other words, I don’t think one can say that it’s more or less ethical to eat a cow rather than a lion; they’re both living creatures worthy of respect.

The word “responsible” comes up, but it’s not really responsibility we’re talking about, is it? What we’re talking about is eating or not eating some animals rather than others based on a perception of one animal’s “nobility.” We eat turkey and pig because they lack the “nobility” of lions and horses? That position, it seems to me, is inarguable with reference to any standard besides aesthetic.

Ethically, I find carnivorousness indefensible: it’s usually unnecessary, frequently cruel, and always leads to death of a living thing. Fine distinctions that separate the animal kingdom into the ethically edible and ethically inedible make no sense.

David Hammond wrote:We're all conscious eaters here (I hope).

Um... conscientious, you mean?

There is the argument that promoting the consumption of farm-raised Lion will somehow lead to the consumption of wild Lion. I don't know if that is true. Along those lines, I use Chinese plasters called Hu Gu Gao which translates to Tiger Bone medicine. There has not been tiger bone used in the plasters for many decades. Nevertheless, I have had people get very angry with me for using something called "Tiger Bone", even when I explain there is no longer any tiger bone in it. They argue that I am somehow promoting the use of tiger bone by using the product.

d4v3 wrote:There is the argument that promoting the consumption of farm-raised Lion will somehow lead to the consumption of wild Lion. I don't know if that is true.

I'm don't know either, but trying to see both sides, one might say that eating farm-raised lion opens one to the idea that such creatures are to be eaten...thus leading to more being eaten. But here's the thing: I strongly suspect that lion meat will be not so tasty, and that it's not eaten for that reason. Ditto black bear. But I may serve both for Thanksgiving, along with the standard turkey.

But to be fully satisfied that the lion is farm raised in the US, don't you have to ignore how it came to be in the US in the first place, where there are no lions naturally? I might be torn yet ultimately satisfied if I find out someone paid hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to get the lion here from Africa in the first place, and that this payment will go towards successful conservation efforts. But please don't get confused with the concept of "US farm raised" as if these lions are being grown in petri dishes. We're not talking about an animal that is plentiful in numbers. There may be some debate over whether lions are endangered, but there's absolutely no debate that their numbers are decreasing and at very low levels compared to all times past.

> With the exception of a few subspecies that are entirely or very nearly extinct in the wild (such as the Barbary and Asiatic lions), captive breeding of lions is completely useless for the preservation of the species. Lions that are farmed for whatever strange reasons people seem to come up with are totally out of the picture in terms of conservation -- and I include zoos in this statement. If you want to get into the question of cruelty or ethics, that is a whole other can of worms. I'm talking solely about conservation of threatened species here.


http://rule-303.blogspot.com/2009/04/bu ... ts-ok.html

Writer Jackson Landers on the subject. I wouldn't be surprised if the US lions are a byproduct of the pet trade. Irresponsible people think a baby lion cub would be a cute pet and have second thoughts when the lion is grown. Laws on the trade of lions as "pets" are inconsistent on a state by state basis. Some states have absolutely no regulations on keeping lions, which is mind-boggling. I doubt meat is driving any kind of demand for farmed lions.

Hi,

In Minneapolis-St. Paul, there is a Somali population which likes camel meat. A few years ago, visits to a several ethnic markets all had Camel sourced from Australia.

Why Australia? I quietly assumed it was some niche farming practice. Today, I learned Australia has a considerable feral camel population. These beasts were brought in by the British for transportation and building projects. When motorized transportation took hold, the camels were released into the wild. They have no predators to keep the population in check, so they went forth and multiplied. By 2008, they estimated their population in Central Australia at one million.

From this Time magazine article Australia’s Feral-Camel Problem Has No Easy Solution:

“One of the biggest problems is that they drink large amounts of water,” explorer and writer Simon Reeve told the BBC. “They gulp down gallons at a time and cause millions of pounds worth of damage to farms and water holes which are used to water stock. They also drink dry water holes belonging to the Aborigines.” Camels are also responsible for damaging vital infrastructure such as fences, water tanks, pumps and pipes. Ecologists fear the camels’ vast appetites will ravage traditional food sources for native species such as kangaroos, emus and assorted reptiles.

During my last visit to the twin cities, I bought Injera and a pound of camel meat. I wasn't sure if I would like and didn't want a lot to eat through, if I didn't. I prepared an Ethiopean style meal with everything laid out on a piece of Injera: braised camel, farmer's cheese, various salads, beans and vegetables.

My youngest niece and nephew were visiting. They know they get food at our house, which they never see elsewhere. Certainly, braised camel was something they both reluctantly tried. Once they found it to their liking, I then regretted not buying more.

Based on today's newly learned information, I propose:

Eat Camel, Save Australia!

Regards,
Cathy2

I have regularly seen ground camel in the frozen meat section at Mariano's.

I have no issues with eating non-endangered critters.
I do have issues with others who try to tell me what I should and should not eat.
I'm more in the Andrew Zimmern camp.
If it tastes good, eat it.

I remember this book as being an interesting look at our history as eaters, and our relationship with animals. Seemed relevant to this discussion: Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals, by Hal Herzog

There was another book that changed how I thought about how and why people eat meat in the first place that I'd like to recommend: Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Richard Wrangham.