Lion Burgers, Anyone?

I don't understand the whole exotic game animal meat for consumption dealio. Buffalo burgers, ostrich burgers, stuff like that. Does it make it any more of a meal because you're eating something that you wouldn't normally eat? I don't know that it does. And does it really taste SO much better than a regular beef burger or a regular turkey burger? Different? I'd buy that. But better? I don't know. But now I'm afraid that the whole exotic burger deal is trying to one-up itself with an item on the menu at a Sacramento establishment. That's right. The Flaming Grill (which sounds like it would be more apt to be a gay bar than it would a bar and grill) is serving up lion burgers. Wait. What now?

Correct. Lion burgers. Well, not just lion burgers. Because that would be weird. No, they're lion AND antelope burgers. Mostly antelope. So, that should help, right? No. No, it kinda doesn't. Look, I'm not saying that they're disgusting or anything like that. I really don't know. I've never had a lion/antelope burger. (What would that be? Like a lintelope? Sounds fuzzy.) I just don't know that it's necessary, you know? According to KTXL in Sacramento "There are rules and regulations for this type of thing, but the Flaming Grill says it's not breaking any. The business tells FOX40 it can't serve a burger with all lion meat, and it's supply is not imported from another country." Wait. What?

It's not imported from another country? Where, exactly, in the United States do we have all of these lions roaming around that are fit for eating? I was unaware of the lion-as-food populace in this country. Not imported? How is that possible? And even if it is possible, when did this start? You know, all of the extra lions.

Upon further investigation of the Flaming Grill (OK, I went to Yelp) I discovered that the lintelope burger is not all that they serve that would be classified under the weird exotic menu. No, they have other things as well. For example, the yak burger. Made just for those of you with a hankerin' for some yak. Lemme guess. Is that meat not imported from another country either? Just a little Yellowstone poaching, perhaps?

Then there's the alligator burger. I want to know what's the difference between alligator meat and crocodile meat. They seem like they're cousins, yet I never hear of crocodile being on a menu anywhere. And if it was going to be anywhere, I'd have to guess that this place would be it.

There's your buffalo burger. Buffalo, the cousin of the yak. Still edible. Still odd. But it's not as odd as, of course, the llama burger. Behold!

Llama? Who would even think of eating a llama? Why would you want to? They're the spitters, right? Yeah, I don't want spit-laden meat. Llamas look like they're half camel, half ostrich. I'm surprised those aren't on the menu at the Flaming Grill as well! But according to the Yelp-sters, there is kangaroo available on some occasions. (Now, I KNOW that isn't from this country! Explain the kangaroo!)

I'm not bagging on the Flaming Grill, but I really take issue with the whole "exotic food" concept. Most of the time, foods that are considered to be "exotic" were only eaten in the first place because the people who were eating them were starving to death at the time! They would have eaten each other if they could have! It's not like they were looking to do the "exotic" thing at the time. They ate what they could. But when you can eat things that are more plentiful (and normal), shouldn't we just stick with those? Do we really need to be eating llamas? I'm not so sure.

Flaw and Order

Recently, here in the fine, fine state of California, some asshat Senator (said asshat being California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez) introduced a bill that would, according to a story at Fox News (and they're fair and balanced, don't you know?), "...establish a registry of names -- similar to widely used sex offender databases -- to track and make public the identities of people convicted of felony animal abuse." Now, really, how I feel about that isn't exactly what this post is about, but I'm going to tell you what I think anyway.

And what I think is that if they're going to do this, someone is going to have to tell me where it's going to end. What I mean is that I think that sex offender databases are a good thing. I like to know where the perverts are. (Have you blue-dotted your neighborhood today?) But I'm thinking I'd also like to know where all of the folks convicted of assault are at. Add to that the folks convicted of theft, vandalism, burglary, or armed anything. All I'm saying is that it's going to have to stop somewhere and I think it needs to be contained to sex offenders. Otherwise, I think we run the risk of becoming a little too Big Brother-ish for my comfort level.

But I digress. The point here is that the folks in California (at least one of them, anyway) think that animal abuse is such a horrific crime (and it is) that those who perpetrate it and are convicted of it should be entered into some sort of statewide database. That view seems to be radically different from at least one judge in West Virginia. The judge in mention would be a one Kanawha Circuit Judge James Stucky. Let's learn more about him, shall we?

Judge Stucky presided over the sentencing of a one 18-year old (and old enough to know better) Charles Wiant. Mr. Wiant was being sentenced after pleading guilty for killing his neighbor's German shepherd with a bow and arrow. Clearly, Mr. Wiant is an asshat. That much seems cut and dried. What's not so clear is what is wrong with Judge Stucky.

Judge Stucky sentenced Mr. Wiant to spend four weekends in jail and "...serve 50 volunteer hours at the Kanawha-Charleston Animal Shelter, pay $1,000 to the dog's owners and spend a year on unsupervised probation." Hmmm. Now, the article in the Charleston Daily Mail says that the Judge " ...imposed a sentence that was suggested by the victims and recommended by prosecutors in exchange for a guilty plea." Now, while I don't know what the sentencing parameters for something like shooting a German shepherd with a bow and arrow, I know that it doesn't seem unreasonable at all. I don't know that it seems like one would need to make any concessions to such a sentence. I, however, am not Judge Stucky. And Judge Stucky "...agreed to a sentencing arrangement that will allow him to attend the Hank Williams Jr. concert at the Charleston Civic Center on April 2. Wiant's lawyer, Bill Forbes, explained that Wiant's girlfriend already has spent a lot of money on the tickets." Wait. What?

Correct. This convicted and, apparently, admitted (he pled guilty) dog murderer whose weapon of choice was a bow and arrow, will be allowed to go to a Hank Williams Jr. concert because his girlfriend already spent a lot of money on the tickets. Are you freaking kidding me?!

I think that crimes against animals are in some ways more reprehensible than crimes against humans. Regardless though, it's hard for me to be really objective on this one when I'm an animal lover. I definitely do not think that four weekends in jail is any sort of a just sentence. But it is what it is. And it's a sentence. And I don't think that it needs to be altered. And animal lover or not, I certainly don't give a fat rat's ass how much money the convicted's girlfriend spent on concert tickets. Too bad. Maybe she should have chosen a better boyfriend. Perhaps one who wouldn't get his ass thrown in jail for shooting a German shepherd with a bow and arrow and killing it? THAT might be the kind of boyfriend to have. You know, one who doesn't do stuff like that!

Just remember, kids! If you're going to be sentenced to jail in Judge Stucky's courtroom and think that you may be needing a break from the doldrums of prison life once you're in there, make sure that you purchase some pricey concert tickets ahead of time so that the Judge will let you attend! Make it a country music concert just to be on the safe side. Plan ahead!