Hey PETA! Eat this!

[jsalcedo]

I've never deboned a bird before. Anybody got any pointers?

Foodnetwork.com has it in their database.

They did a pheasant in a duck in a turkey, Phuckey?

 

[mrmeval]

Nope bigger to smaller first three of beginning last is last two though could be three for pronounciation.
TurDucAnt

How about
Turkey<-Duck<-Chicken<-Phesant<Quail<-Pidgeon<-Starling

Turducchiphequapiding

Foodnetwork.com has it in their database.

They did a pheasant in a duck in a turkey, Phuckey?

 

[madmike]

Nope bigger to smaller first three of beginning last is last two though could be three for pronounciation.
TurDucAnt

How about
Turkey<-Duck<-Chicken<-Phesant<Quail<-Pidgeon<-Starling

Turducchiphequapiding

lark inside that (Lark's Tongues in Aspic...good tune, never tried the dish), and remember that budgerigar is Aborigine for "good to eat."

Then stuff that whole mess into a goose inside an ostrich.

Ostrogooturduchipheaquapidginglardgie

Now, how can we get hold of condor and spotted owl?

 

[Boss Spearman]

That sort of "turkey shoot" is an old tradition...

The turkeyis tied behind a log, so that only the head will stick up. No box, no stationary turkey, no stationary head. This has been described going back tothe 1700s...

...

I recently saw Sergeant York with Gary Cooper and they showed this event exactly as you describe it.

 

[KriegHund]

At first i thought "You put a turkey in a box, zip tie it in, and then shoot it in the head?

Then i realized the turkey was liable to die anyways, but it wouldnt provide such entertainment.

Meh, whatever. Personaly, ide rather be shot in the head than have my head chopped off.

Maybe im just a wierdo, but i wouldnt mind trying to shoot a moving turkey head with my mauser....
Theres not much point to it IMO if it aint moving. Otherwise its just a regular old target....

 

[Dragun]

Forecasting lockdown before page 3 is filled in this thread. If it survives longer, I will be rather surprised.

i have no problem with this kind of fund raiser!

 

[madmike]

Gee, I didn't know that turkeys were deaf and couldn't hear the sound of the missed shot...because yeah, animals don't scare easily by loud noise and restraint. Yes, i believe any animal that is held captive by another and is then subjected to loudn noise in an unfamaliar environment is a wee bit scared.

The Turkey pens don't look too fun either, but they don't look terrifying.

Capstick reports that African megafauna, that certainly DO have brains, regard gunfire largely like thunder, and don't make a connection between the noise and an animal falling over unless they actually see a hunter close with the animal.

Seeing as he killed near 1000 elephant and God knows how many cape buffs, rhino, lion, leopard, antelope, gazelle...I'm inclined to believe the turkey has no clue what's going on.

Now, I'd rather shoot at a MOVING turkey for sport than a head in a box. But that's a personal position.

Commercial poultry are raised in various ways, usually in small cages with their beaks burned off (My father in law designed the laser system many places use, that removes the beak and cauterizes in one operation). If it's an egg farm, the male chicks are simply tossed into a dumpster. I believe meat farms are the same--few males are kept. Claws are usually retained, but frequently have to be cut off to remove the animal if it dies. A disease outbreak means the entire barnful are killed at once to reduce the spread. Egg farms run a very odd artificial light and dark cycle to force egglaying to a high rate. Want to talk about veal, lamb, "Cornish" hens and such? Commercial meat isn't pretty.

Let's not even discuss the French's version of veal made from a foal that was starved for three days after birth and then killed.

Of course, just because a turkey shoot isn't worse doesn't mean PETA won't make mileage out of it.

Can we stick an activist in a box and save a turkey?

 

[madmike]

It is horrible because there are people who think that this is an OK method of killing.

I remember at Boy Scout camp taking the chickens they brought to us, looping their heads through a string to hold them, dragging out the feet so the neck was over a stump and swinging a camp axe. Took 2-3 chickens before we had the form down for a clean kill.

For Wilderness Survival merit badge, I watched a guy catch a bird and twist its neck.

I've also rescued birds with wings full of shot that didn't do the job. Some lived, some died within a few hours.

Which if these methods is better than shooting a turkey in the head?

 

[madmike]

Bull fights? Dog fights? Cock fights? Outlets for degenerates who are too cowardly to put their own hides at risk.

The toreador does. Though anyone who wears pink and lavender and tight pants I do wonder about.

 

[madmike]

It probably makes me a horrible human being to think this, but that would actually be kinda funny.

Wonder if I can roll one that small. Tape it in his beak and wrap a little bandana around his eyes?

I think that would improve the fundraiser. Guy looks through his scope, sees the blindfold and cigarette, busts a gut laughing and can't hit the bird.

 

[madmike]

Now as to the real argument, it is not about dinner because remember not everyone, probably not even most, get a turkey at the turkey shoot.

the animal does not stand a chance. Sure you can miss but the animal gets killed anyhow later on.

So, the FIRST animal doesn't stand a chance. The odds improve with each succeeding animal until the day is done.

Hunting includes harvesting. The manner of harvest should be such that you show our respect for that being harvested. This is a sign of a true hunter/gatherer/harvester.

Oh, bull. People who depended and those who still do depend on hunting to survive use the least sporting method possible. !Kung Bushmen use poisoned arrows. Herds have been stampeded or herded by fire and off cliffs. Animals have been hamstrung and stoned to death. If you've ever seen even a video of African wild dogs bringing down a gazelle and chewing its organs out alive, you'd consider ANY human hunting humane.

And then they told stories of their bravery around the campfire while smoking hemp and drinking fermented millet.

 

[madmike]

1911/m1 garand fanatics amuse me. They are great guns, but there are reasons (and good ones) they arent on the battlefield any longer.

Hm...I agree on the Garand. But who's going to tell Marine Recon their recent order for 1911s is wrong?

 

[madmike]

Any person who engages in such an awful "game" is likely of no worth and is probably defective in many other ways.

Only defective and pathetic people enjoy killing animals, savagely, for fun and game.

You realize PETA says almost that exact quote about ALL hunters and fishermen?

 

[ezypikns]

Not for me.....

but if it's your cup of tea, more power to you.

 

[1911Tuner]

Garands

Off-topic, but what the hello...It's already gone to hell in a handbasket anyway, so...

1911/m1 garand fanatics amuse me. They are great guns, but there are reasons (and good ones) they arent on the battlefield any longer.
**********************

Garands...mainly because they couldn't be quickly topped off without taking them out of battery.

M-1911...mainly because of our European NATO allies insisting that we conform to their ammo standards...and the fact that the old ones were worn out...and another contract would have been too expensive since only one manufacturers had any of the original tooling and few of the ordnance gauges used to build new ones correctly.

I really don't see much point in letting this one stay open...but since I'm not in my jurisdiction, I'll defer to one of my colleagues for the call.

 

[madmike]

but if it's your cup of tea, more power to you.

I think that may be a great post.

Especially, in summary:

So, we're "Getting back to our roots" by hunting, but seeing as turkey shoots were more common in the past, we're hoping to be more "ethical" these days than those. Interesting dichotomy.

And I should equate a useful and beloved family pet (since a hound was mentioned) with a turkey, and how sad I would feel if someone shot it? Sorry, but I don't feel sad for a dead turkey, period. Not even roadkill. It's meat or it's not and that's as far as I think of them. I DO get sad when I see a dead cat or dog. Pets and food are not the same in my culture. I realize there are cultures where this is true, including some farms, but in that case, the animal is killed just as readily (Though sometimes you only take one leg at a time. Hey, fine pig like that, you don't kill him all at once ).

I've actually become convinced through this thread that there's nothing wrong with this tradition at all. It's quick and painless enough, bound to be LESS scary than what I've seen of animals in line in a slaughterhouse after being trucked across country for the honor, and definitely and efficiently winds up as meat.

Hell, most fish have terribly small mental capacities, let's get a 60-gallon bucket of them, and then whack them with big Bertha Warbird Titanium Drivers for $1.00 a shot. Furthest hitter gets a coupon for $25.00 off at Red Lobster! The money can go to the March of Dimes!

Heck, I'd take up golf for that, though. Sounds like a blast.

As far as animals being scared by gunfire, I recall numerous times rabbits sitting on a trap range eating dandelions, right in front of 5 guys with 12 gauges.

And why would 8mm or .338 be necessary? A friggin .22 will brain a bird. Talk about massive waste of power.

Oh, and I resent being called a "bubba" and the implication of barbarism and stupidity (actually, I think it was a statement, not an implication) because I don't object to this. That sounds pretty much like a PETA activist talking. And it's bigotry. I've occasionally had a beer while carrying, and I drove home afterwards, too! Horrors.

I recall PETA doing a "vegetarian" Thanksgiving for homeless, and commenting on how "grateful" the homeless were to get fed. Duh. And yet it was a soundbite. We need to be looking at this for our own soundbites, to drown them out.

And I do not give a @#$%#@ing @#%#^%$ if some Q#$%#@ing PETA @#$*($er is reading this board. No, I WILL NOT base my posts on what might or might not offend my opponents. They can go #@$^Y a #$&@. And I will just ignore anyone who suggests that my free speech, within the rules of this forum, FOR people of like mindset, should be moderated for a bunch of whacktards. That was the mentality that caused Snitch and Wussy to sign a deal with the clinton assministration. @#$%& the opposition. They have their own boards, and they don't moderate their speech in case we see them.

 

[roo_ster]

jfruser...I'm tryin' to put out a fire here before somebody gets booted. Howsabout refrainin' from throwing gas on it. I'd consider it a favor.

1911Tuner:

Sorry 'bout that. I hadn't read the last few posts by the, ahh, most vehement pro & anti turkey shooters & didn't see your post till after mashing the "submit reply" button. It took me a while to complete the post, given distractions.

I woulda made it less pointed & more jovial, if I had.

I gotta admit that the idea of a few fellows taking long range shots from an unsupported standing position while imbibing room-temperature barley goodness has some charm. Also, what's not to like about a culture that makes a festival out of a target shooting competition, compltete with sausage, kraut, & all sorts of victuals? Sounds like a little slice of heaven to me.

 

[NineseveN]

Jfruser:

I maintain that anyone that operates a firearm while under the influence of alcohol is utterly irresponsible. I don't care what other cultures do. Are they "Bubbas"? I don't know, hey have a different culture and a different set of laws and forms of government. I do know that in many, if not most places, operating or even having a firearm while having alcohol in your blood can result in a legal hassel or even jail time and having your firearms rights suspended or revoked. Not everywhere mind you, doesn't need to be.

As responsible firearms owners, we should be advocates of safety, booze and guns are not safe. If you feel otherwise, more power to you, glad I don't shoot with you.

 

[madmike]

Jfruser:

I maintain that anyone that operates a firearm while under the influence of alcohol is utterly irresponsible.

Do you feel the same way about cars and power tools? Have you EVER driven after consuming, before the total alcohol content had been metabolized?

You're far more likely to hurt someone with a car than a gun.

 

[jsalcedo]

Crude but you get the idea.

 

[NineseveN]

Joab:

Your intent was to stir the emotions of the reader by further making apples to
oranges comparisons of beating dogs and horses. That's an emotional argument.

I'm glad you are inside my head. please do not presume to know what my intent was, it shows ignorance on your part. I already stated that those examples were bad and probably out of line. I made a more appropriate example later on. My intent was to vent because some of the things encountered in this thread annoyed me to no end.

Yes animals feel fear ,or a reasonable facsimile, however a turkey is just too stupid to put two and two together and realize that those fast moving bugs around his head are trying to kill him.

What difference does that make? The animal, a living creature is in fear due to a
circumstance that someone put it in. You can split hairs all you want about intelligence or capacity to reason, it all boils down to putting the animal in an unnatural situation and inducing a fearful state. I thought that was clear. I wasn’t the one that suggested that the animal was aware of what was going on, and in fact, I clearly stated that part of the fear was fear of the unknown and unfamiliar.

If you cannot carry a conversation without hysterical and irrelevant emotionalisms then you are not qualified to have a conversation outside of your chosen choir

And if you cannot discuss a situation without presuming to know someone else's intent, then you'd be better off having a discussion with yourself.

And I guess that being backwards has more to do with being dumb than just simple minded

Nope. The term, "backwards" is often used to refer to something that has shown a distinct lack of progress, or in some cases, even regression. It is not necessarily meant to be a negative term, as progress is not always a good thing, and sometimes moving backwards is the only way one can reasonably go. Those that continue this type of "shoot" are participating in an event that goes back a long time, progression on the issue would be, at least to me, moving forward enough to respect the animals, all of them no matter how "dumb" they are and not going out of the way to inflict more harm or fright than necessary. It has nothing to do
with intelligence, I am very certain that some remarkably educated folks participate in such
shoots.

How do I know what your life experience is?
I've read your hysterical irrelevant emotion driven comments here, they tell me all I need
to know.

So basically, you read some things I said on the internet and all of the sudden, you know my life experiences? Wow, amazing.

Never said the turkeys are unable to feel fear only that they lack the intelligence to feel fear in this situation. To feel fear they must first be able to acknowledge that there is something to fear I also have never even hinted that I believe animals should be abused only that this does not constitute abuse as you believe

Neither man nor animal needs to acknowledge something to fear it. Fear often stems from the unknown or uncertainty. Panic is a form of fear, anxiety has roots in fear. Fear is not a rational thing and therefore does not need to fit into a preconceived pattern of acknowledgment.

I said:
I never said "Klansmen" nor did I interject race or racism into this. I don't appreciate you
attributing things to me that I did not say. I never, ever, not once, not even one half of a
time said anything about anyone being a "klansman" or a racist. If you have nothing to say
other than what you can make up, I'd ask that you bow out of this discussion.

Come again?

You quoted me as saying:
Oh I see, we only care about the smart animals? Dumb ones don't matter. LMAO. White sheets
and woodgrain all around.

amend that last statement if you care to

Um, "White sheets and woodgrain all around." is not a racist remark. It's actually taken from an obscure work of literature relayed to me by my father (the title I forget, it's been many years). My father relayed it to me some time ago. As I recall, it's about a young princess who becomes a queen when her parents take ill and pass on. She takes a young boy from a neighboring village as her king. Anyway, through the course of the story, all kinds of terrible event happen to her (she finds her king with another woman, her prized horse runs away and goes missing etc...),

Due to these events, she is consumed by so much rage, that she wages war on all of the villages and kingdoms to the North, South, East and West (he cheating king was from the South, her horse ran off to the East, the woman her king cheated on her with was from the West and she wages war on the North simply because they protest her war against everyone else).

After many months of fighting, the wars begin to take their tolls on all of the lands. Where there were once forests there are now charred earth and embers rising from the funeral pyres. The entire world around her turns ugly and she is stricken with a great sadness over the state of things. Her councilor urges her to call off the wars and begin to heal the lands and rebuild what has been damaged as that will surely be the only way she can overcome her grief. She was a queen, surely it was in her power to do such things. But she could not be reasoned with, she would not call off the wars or rebuild. Instead, she solved her sadness by taking all of the bed sheets in her castle and covering the windows so she did not have to look out at the barren world she had created. She shut and boarded up every door to the castle (wood doors). And she was happy, despite the fact that nothing changed. the world was still ugly and getting worse, she simply chose to ignore it. She used the white sheets and wood grain to block out the cries for her to stop, to hide the ugliness that had consumed the lands. It's basically a metaphor for folks covering up ugliness or other unfavorable things with something pleasant in order to be able to ignore the underlying negatives.


I can honestly see where you may have gotten that wrong, I wasn't very clear, and the reference is so obscure I could not expect anyone to know it (hell, I hardly remember it). Sorry to disappoint you sir, but you were mistaken. As for the rest of what you have said, I think you’re wrong, you think I am wrong, let's agree to disagree. I find our discussion ugly at the moment.

 

[madmike]

What difference does that make? The animal, a living creature is in fear due to a
circumstance that someone put it in. You can split hairs all you want about intelligence or capacity to reason, it all boils down to putting the animal in an unnatural situation and inducing a fearful state.

Yup. sounds like PETA talking about hunting or the stockyard. And factually, the statement is correct.

So morally, I find the argument fails of its merits.

sorry.

 

[NineseveN]

Do you feel the same way about cars and power tools? Have you EVER driven after consuming, before the total alcohol content had been metabolized?

You're far more likely to hurt someone with a car than a gun.

Cars? Yes I do. No doubt about it.

Have I driven home after consuming some booze? Yes I have. It was wrong to do it when I did it, I dont do it any more and haven't done it since.

Power tools? I don't know that many people operate power tools around others while drinking, but yes this is also not cool.

Look, if you wanna booze up out in the middle of nowhere with not a soul around for 50 miles, drink up, shoot your guns, play with fire, drive wildly through the fields, set off some dynamite for all I care. When in populated areas, no, none of these things should be done while having alcohol in your system.


I cannot belive this place now, we're arguing FOR using alcohol while shooting a firearm? Oh my christ, where did THR go? I'm not even going to argue about this, it's ridiculous.

 

[madmike]

I cannot belive this place now, we're arguing FOR using alcohol while shooting a firearm? Oh my christ, where did THR go? I'm not even going to argue about this, it's ridiculous.

I was simply pointing out the ongoing hypocrisy. A person who consumes a beer during a shoot is a "bubba," but a person who drives after doing so is socially acceptable. For there to be a moral difference is plain hypocrisy.

I don't drink when I play guitar, either. It screws up my playing.

Every one of your statements is inherently simple opinion, unsupportable by observation. As has been noted several times, the emotional cries about feelings and emotion apply EQUALLY to animals in a slaughteryard. If you oppose one on moral grounds, you must oppose the other. The animal is coralled, prodded, restrained and killed amidst noise, confusion and the smell of death.

So I presume you won't be eating any more McDonald's or Jimmy Dean, right?

Right?

 

[madmike]

and setting up tents where they'll serve barbeque, tamales, and beer for the rest of the day.

By the way, as I read that, the drinking was AFTER the shooting.