PETA sometimes has a point

[eisely 13]

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium plans to stop Boy Scouts from slaughtering chickens and other small animals at summer camp, despite Scout leaders' defence of the practice as a lesson in wilderness survival.

 

The Health Ministry said in a statement issued on Monday that one Scout group had refused to stop teaching its lads how to carry out the bloody task even after complaints from parents.

 

"These kids have to be taught how to kill an animal in order to feed themselves," the ministry quoted one of the group's representatives as saying.

 

However, the ministry took the view that the Scouts learnt nothing from using animals in this way.

 

 

[purcelce 11]

PETA - People eating tasty animals

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

you mean ... (gasp) ... meat comes from animals????

 

ewww! ... I always thought it came from the grocery store!

[SemperParatus 1]

Give me Belgian waffle over a chicken any day.

[madkins007 10]

Semp- I'm trying to picture that- the Belgium waffle over a chicken...

 

I dunno, but I think I'd rather do mine on top of the waffle... and I think I'd rather do either fruit on the waffle, or use a nice crusty bread for the chicken... but maybe they do things differently in your neck of the woods? ;-)

[evmori 11]

Does this mean no fishing?

[SR540Beaver 116]

Teaching a scout how to kill an animal for survival is of little use unless you've taught them how to catch the animal first. If you really want to teach them that level of survival skills, then you don't need to teach them with a chicken. Teach them to catch a critter first, then kill it and cook it. Eisley said that Peta had a point in his title. Would showing a boy how to build a fire but deny him the ability to actually build and start one be of much practical use?

[eisely 13]

Teaching how to kill animals for food without teaching how to catch them first is rather pointless, as pointed out above. I don't want boys to be squeamish about things, but this episode in Belgium is a little over the top for me.

[orennoah 11]

It seems to me that PETA is being counterproductive in this. If they really wanted to promote their stated goal of eliminating the use of animals for food, they should REQUIRE all of us carnivores to slaughter our own meat, at least once.

 

After generations of us having been removed from the process and seeing meat only in attractive packages in the local megamart, I dare say that many more of us would become vegetarians.

 

For myself, I wouldn't enjoy doing the slaughtering but I fully realize that I indirectly employ others to do it for me and I treat meat with the respect that it deserves.

 

- Oren

[Oak Tree 15]

I'm trying to imagine how this lesson actually went.

 

"Let's say you're lost and hungry out in the wilderness. You know you need to eat to survive. One thing to do is to look around for a chicken nest. Once you find the home of these wild food-on-two-legs walking dinners, you'll need to catch it and kill it. But for now, let's skip ahead and pretend that you've managed to become lost while still possessing a wire cage and you've managed to entice a fearsome chicken to trap itself inside. We'll move right to the next step where you kill the animal."

 

How much sense does this possibly make? It sounds like some odd combination of hunting (kill a deer and eat it - that's pretty much legal in the U.S.) and farming (raise and kill a chicken and eat it - also, pretty much legal in the U.S.)

 

Oak Tree

[Cubmaster Mike 10]

I have the same problem with my "citified" wife. If I shoot something, she won't eat it!

 

Seriously through, her taste buds have been cultured and trained to what MegaFood provides. She will eat turkey, goose and ham if it comes from the store, but the flavor of wild turkey, goose and ham is unfamiliar and "icky."

 

That is why I have insisted that from their first year, my children will eat wild game. I now have my 6- and 8-year olds helping to pluck and clean ducks and geese during hunting season and fish durng the trout season. The result is that they're not squeamish at the sight of gutting animals and have developed a taste for game. It's also a good lesson in harvesting animals for food and not just for the sake of killing.

 

And in an age where everything from the store comes cleaned and dressed for the oven (removing the gizzard package doesn't count), I'm surprised at how many people have no idea how to clean and dress game. I think that's the real lesson going on and that Reuters has misinterpreted the story. It's not the killing of chickens and rabbits, but how to properly gut and prepare a carcass as food.

 

I will note however, that my child who can pluck a duck or goose and ignore the blood and guts, will still scream like a banshee when he/she skins their knee or elbow and notices a little blood.

[Cubmaster Mike 10]

I would also add that chickens and rabbits are easy to come by and cheap so they make good learning tools. Lawyers are also cheap and plentiful but they scream too much.

 

Imagine being in a survival situation, you manage to catch something and then have no idea what to do with the carcass because you've never had to gut something?

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Killing a chicken can teach a proper lesson. In many areas of the world the refrigerator is considered the live chicken in the yard. It doesn't appear on the surface to be survival until you witness the full extent of their living conditions.

 

The Scout exercise used to be to secure one chicken in a wire cage per participant. Both the Scouts and the chickens are brought to a wilderness area. The chicken gets a one hour head start. The Scouts are let go for the weekend in hopes they can catch, kill and eat the chicken or run, shout and return home hungry.

 

 

FB