Way to go York! Now, if we could only get NEW York to do likewise!

Posted by: Susannah S | October 8, 2007 05:20 PM

York, your the best.
You are their leaders.
Be proud.
The people will someday bring an end to such a horrific practice.
We will not go quietly.
Peace and good luck.
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 8, 2007 09:50 PM

wonderful news!!!

Posted by: Russell | October 9, 2007 12:34 AM

So you condone wasting a perfectly usable resource? Instead of using as much of the animal as possible it's better to throw out parts that otherwise could be used?What waste and irreverence for the animal!

Posted by: Mars | October 9, 2007 07:42 AM

only shit eats foie gras

Posted by: Tracy | October 9, 2007 08:33 AM

Way to go!! Keep sending the message, one restaurant at a time is good for everybody! Remember next time you're thinking about taking a bite people, it's a diseased liver you're about to eat. How can it possibly be good for you? Never mind the torture that goes into the making of foie gras. What a name!

Posted by: Carla | October 9, 2007 10:12 AM

Let's hope Ireland take the next positive stands and bans Foie Gras too!

Posted by: John Carmody | October 9, 2007 10:22 AM

Susannah S,
My thoughts exactly!!!

Posted by: Andy | October 9, 2007 11:17 AM

When our fellow animal rights' activists' activities from other parts of the world are presented on here, there aren't many comments that acknowledge them. I am guilty of not commenting about them.
So I would like to say to them:
I'm sure a lot of us read about all your great efforts and achievements, and sincerely appreciate them for the sake of the animals.
So we really are aware of what you do, and I applaud ALL of you.
Thank you for being such self-less, compassionate people who freely give your time for the animals. Your very impressive animal rights' activities greatly help to make this a better world!

Posted by: Ariel | October 9, 2007 12:05 PM

York is an excellent example how a big city should respect an ethical lifestyle! Let's just hope that other european cities like London and Paris etc. shall follow this great example because force-feeding is a horrific animal abuse and against human dignity!

Posted by: Zanoni | October 9, 2007 05:11 PM

Bravo, Mr. Blanchard!

I'm a former resident of the City of York and I am both surprised and extremely pleased that you would act in such a bold and positive way to help the innocent.

Thank you!

Posted by: Susan Trout | October 9, 2007 06:13 PM

A BIG THANK YOU!!! What a wonderful message to send to the rest of the country

Posted by: c | October 9, 2007 06:25 PM

If a wolf can rip through the flesh of a live deer, then I don't see what the big deal is about foie gras.

Posted by: Ray-O | October 9, 2007 08:40 PM

to the blogowner concerning mars:

so you waste a perfectly usable resource. instead of loosing as many animal protectors as possible it's better to throw out parts that are not useful! what waste and irreverence is coming from mars!

mars: fumier de crevure!!! (sorry - here i have to curse in my french mothertongue because i'm too angry now)

Posted by: Old Spiderwoman | October 10, 2007 08:06 AM

Mars,

It's more irreverential to the animal to eat it in the first place. Not eating it would be a good way to show your reverence.

The creation of foie gras is an abusive process. If you really have to have goose or duck liver, obtain it from a "conventionally" raised bird.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 10, 2007 12:19 PM

WELCOME to every newcomer to this blog site who is sincerely interested in knowing about ANIMAL RIGHTS'!

Please be aware that there are a lot of comments on here from anti-animal activists, which are very obvious.
However, some try to slyly give the impresson they are a/r's actvists - yet their comments are actually contrary to ANIMAL RIGHTS'

An example of that is the post above by "MARS," 10-9-07, at 7:42 am.

So the more knowledge you gain about ANIMAL RIGHTS', the more easily you will be able to distinguish the facts (from REAL a/r's activists,) compared to the fiction (from the anti-a/r's activists).

Posted by: Ariel | October 10, 2007 02:17 PM

Ariel:
you write what i'm thinking!!! thank you!

Posted by: Bodhisattva | October 10, 2007 02:35 PM

Such great news!

Posted by: V. Soto | October 10, 2007 03:39 PM

Any step taken against the
foie gras industry is a "triumph"! The city of York
we salute you! I am always
deeply saddened when I think
of the plight of the ducks
and geese. Things are changeing for the better, little by little.

Posted by: Pamela L | October 10, 2007 03:40 PM

"It's more irreverential to the animal to eat it in the first place. "

How? A bobcat is irreverent for eating the same bird? How about the hawks, eagles, fox,moutain lion,raccoon,weasel, mink,otter, wolf,that prey on these birds just as humans do?

"The creation of foie gras is an abusive process. If you really have to have goose or duck liver, obtain it from a "conventionally" raised bird."

Where do you think the liver comes from? I know you believe those birds are raised and killed solely for the .25c that they get for each liver but it's not the truth.Hormones are expensive and nobody injects $10. worth of drugs into any animal to get a quarter.I suppose you think a cow and pig are only killed for their livers as well.

Posted by: Mars | October 10, 2007 05:07 PM

hilarious comments on fact and fiction. I'd suggest to all newcomers to double check from an alternative source all "facts" from both pro and anti posters. Only then can you be informed. It would be an interesting survey to see which side is most accurate.

Posted by: rojo | October 10, 2007 05:38 PM

Mars: so you and the bird breeders want more from these poor birds than their tortured liver? Me I want more from you and them than a damned bullshit because you are all MONSTERS! I want your souls - I swallow them - then I spit them out and let them for the devil to f*** them! Inhumane people don't deserve any sympathy! If your brains work like the brains of predators so you deserve to be a prey and in eternity! Humans are not animals and there is no excuse for such ruthless crimes!

Posted by: King Kobra | October 10, 2007 06:26 PM

Obviously it's time for a "cut and paste" due to ad nauseum.
So I'll just explain the first part briefly that has already been explained 105 times:
Animals attack their prey out of instinct, which is the law of nature. It has nothing to do with animals being reverant or irreverant to each other.
Human animals do not attack "prey" like the animals do. If you ever see a human attack an animal with his mouth or hands (and also consume the animal as is), please call the police who will promptly haul him off to a psych hospital. Now, that has everything to do with irrational.

(I can't even go there with the foie gras - my head is spinning!) : )
Well, I'll just throw this in: it is irrational for human beings to eat diseased livers. (medical studies have shown that there is a relationship of foie gras being the cause of certain human diseases. Further studies are being done to show a relationship of foie gras to Alzheimer's)

Posted by: Ariel | October 10, 2007 07:12 PM

Great news! The process to create foie gras is one of the most abusive endeavors I have ever witnessed. Is there a more sad and sadistic place than a foie gras farm?(Unfortunately there probably are).

The more information that is shared about this issue, the better- hopefully leading to more people voluntarily giving up this 'delicacy'- there's really no point to eating it. Once you know how it is made and how the birds suffer, you would have to be one cruel mf to eat this.

Posted by: susan | October 11, 2007 02:12 AM

Ariel,
To imply that humans do not act on instinct epitomizes your arrogant elitist attitude. The whole reason we love kittens and puppies is based on instinct. We love babies not because they are empirically beautiful, but because we have evolved to love them because parents who love babies are more successful breeders. Puppies and Kittens fall into this instinctual pattern for us.(This is not my original idea, I read it in a book once; despite not being literate, I managed to plow through with big print and lots of pictures.)
Do I/we hunt out of instinct, not likely, but neither do lions and tigers. They hunt because they are hungry. The way they hunt is partially instinct, partially learned. Just like us. You are more of a slave to the evolution of your brain than you know, but given how little you seem to understand the natural world, I am not surprised you don't understand your own brain. You give humans too much credit, and animals too little. I would go out on a limb and say that the reason you and your ilk are animal rights fanatics is an overblown form of protective, nurturing instincts. I'm sure that will fire somebody up.
I am happy beyond happy that I haven't "evolved" as far as you...

A day without meat is like a day without sunshine.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 11, 2007 02:08 PM

WELCOME to all NEWCOMERS who are seriously interested in learning about ANIMAL RIGHTS'!
Please be aware that there are a lot of anti-animal activists commenters on here, and some desperately try to dispute the facts about ANIMAL RIGHTS.
Despite them being inundated with documented proof that has been gathered from a vast array of professional fields,* -which is derived from extensive education, life-long/dedicated careers, research, unbiased experiences by eye-witness accounts, court testimonies, indisputable societal or economic or historical or legal facts, etc., etc., etc., - the anti-a/r's activists are very adept at making poor challenges to the contrary, basing it on their own extremely limited amount of knowledge with a narrow perception, to having no knowledge at all. Neither do they provide credentials to support or give credence to their (uneducated) claims, and neither do they direct anyone to reliable sources.
For example, rojo (an anti-activist) profoundly rattled on for months despite being repeatedly negated by animal rights' activists. However, when a fellow countryman of his recently pointed out rojo's immense innacuracies, rojo made no attempt to dispute him. Why? Because rojo is a typical example of an anti-activist who is accustomed to making unsubstantiated outbursts. However, upon the substantiated facts being presented by an "alternative source," rojo was unable to negate him. Thus, he suddenly and obviously became quite obscure. Yet unwilling to admit being wrong, he re-surfaces on occasion only to immaturely mock what he has not been able to conquer for months.
Yes, serious NEWCOMERS, as suggested by rojo, please feel free to do your own research from reliable/credible, unbiased,** knowledgeable sources. That is certainly a part of learning, which unfortunately the anti-activists continually fail to comprehend, even rojo despite his suggestion in a previous blog.
Thank you for your time.

*professional fields include: science, medicine, law enforcement/legal system (at every level), environment, psychology, education, history, etc., etc., etc.
**unbiased: not conclusions given by "experts" who are swayed by personal financial gain due to being well-paid by wealthy, influential anti-animal rights' organizations/individuals, or conclusions drawn by self-serving "experts," or by anyone who is self-serving for the almighty dollar.

Posted by: Ariel | October 11, 2007 02:55 PM

great news!!!!

Posted by: valerio | October 11, 2007 03:30 PM

Ariel, humans use what we have to obtain food just as any animal does.Instead of claw and tooth we have the ability to use tools to compensate. That is our natural ability and the reason humans are at the top of the food chain instead of the bottom.FYI, humans used bare hands and teeth at one time so it can be done but using our brains we figured out a better way that did not involve our losing in the fight for food. Let's see your garden that you grow and harvest solely using your hands and not any shovels or power tools.

Posted by: Mars | October 11, 2007 04:23 PM

Ariel's comments are right on target!

Posted by: Ana | October 11, 2007 05:23 PM

Mars,

The definition of reverence is:

"a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration."

I'm sure a duck or goose does not feel revered or respected when eaten by another animal, human or non-human. As I stated, if you feel the animal is being treated irreverently,
then don't eat it.

Since you are concerned with waste, why not obtain your liver from a non-force fed bird killed for its meat?

You said, "Hormones are expensive and nobody injects $10. worth of drugs into any animal to get a quarter."

That's very reassuring to know that the bird is pumped full of hormones.

You also said, "I suppose you think a cow and pig are only killed for their livers as well."

As usual with most of your suppositions and straw men, you supposed wrong.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 11, 2007 10:30 PM

Jeez....I'll say it again, anyone who knows how this 'delicacy' is made and sees just how horribly the birds suffer, and still eats it, has to be a cruel mf.

These birds suffer on a systematic basis in large numbers, even if you are a regular meat eater, why would you eat this? It's sadistically made and not nutritious. Is it really our natural instinct to inflict such cruelity on a species? If we were to eat these birds just to subsist we would kill one at a time in nature and probably very swiftly and eat as animals do. But this 'instinctual' arguement is bunk, because we have evolved brains(most of us) to make new choices and adapt- in other words we don't specifically have to follow instinct and eat meat-we don't even need meat to live. And part of evolving involves new thinking, but unfortunately some people have used their 'new thinking' skills to come up with new ways to be sadistic and cruel- I hope there are more of us using our brain capacity to come up with more ways to live without inflicting cruelty- after all the need to express and recieve empathy is also very instinctual don't you think?

Posted by: Susan | October 11, 2007 11:04 PM

EASY negations to "Christopher Cochran, MD.'s comments, 10-11-07, 2:08 pm.

1. the above mentioned was SO desperate to negate my comments in post 10-10-07, 7:12 pm, that he purposely broadened my specific point. So then, in his own mind, that gave him reason to (attempt to) cast an insult. (try again, Cocky)

2. His belief about love, which he attributes to "instinct," would be typical of a person to have that belief who is not familiar with internal human emotions, such as compassion, sympathy, empathy, etc., which cannot be instilled in a person who, yet at the same time, has "instinct"/the ability to reason. Meaning, compassionate human emotions cannot be instilled in any person, let alone a person who has abandoned his/her conscience/"instinct," thereby one who abuses animals and/or other humans. As he continues with his desperation, he claims that we have love for kittens, puppies, babies per instinct. BUT Cocky draws the line of having love/respect for other living creatures, the ones he unconscienably kills.(what happened to his "instinct to love" upon those occasions?) (try again, Cocky)

3. Animals hunt because they become instinctively hungry, not reasoning ability.(oh, well now, says the lion, let me try to decide if I am hungry or not - and if so, should I go to the grocery store or just attack the nearest vulnerable creature that looks tasty to me?)(try again,Cocky)

4. VERY much to the contrary of Cocky's moot point, I give the human animal species (self included) a lot less credit than the animal species because I have mentioned on this blog site a few times: "the human species is considered to be the most intelligent species, however, the so-called intelligent human species is the one who irrationally starts wars, is capable of hating, etc. - whereas animals do not have that so-called intelligence."(try again, Cocky)
5. And since Cocky obviously has a very, very short memory, he still insists that animal activists will get "fired up" by his silly comments, even though I have mentioned several times - even as of last week: "a/r's activists do not get offended" because we are not egotistical, therefore, that is why we are capable of selflessly being involved in one of the most thankless positions possible...because the animals, our focus, are not capable of thanking us, AND the majority of us do not get paid, neither do we get awards, etc.(try again, Cocky)
Cocky has repeatedly proven his lack of reading comprehension - so in order to evolve into a person who doesn't have to desperately resort to concocting and misinterpreting what he reads by any a/r's activist, I would like to suggest that he starts to improve his reading skills by purchasing a picture book that will include simple sentences like: "See Spot. See Spot run."
A day without Cocky's nonsense, is like a day without a laugh! LOL

TO: fellow animal rights' activists:
The day that I believe any nonsense from Cocky or MARS - PLEASE - do the humane thing: SHOOT ME!

Posted by: Ariel | October 11, 2007 11:42 PM

"I'm sure a duck or goose does not feel revered or respected when eaten by another animal, human or non-human. As I stated, if you feel the animal is being treated irreverently,
then don't eat it."

Exactly, the animal is incapable of emotions at that level.The reverance is solely a human trait and in this case means to not waste what can be used and that includes plants as well as animals.

"You said, "Hormones are expensive and nobody injects $10. worth of drugs into any animal to get a quarter."

That's very reassuring to know that the bird is pumped full of hormones."

You have some reading comprehension problems. Those birds are not pumped full of hormones.If I gave you .25c would you burn your $10. bill to get it?

"Since you are concerned with waste, why not obtain your liver from a non-force fed bird killed for its meat?"

As I said in another post that didn't make it on here, it is not needed to force feed a duck or goose. Go to your local park with all the feed you can carry and find out for yourself if you have to force feed the ducks/geese to get rid of the feed.

"Animals hunt because they become instinctively hungry, not reasoning ability"

Wrong again. Animals also kill for the fun of killing. A wolf will kill every sheep in a herd and not eat a single one. A weasel will kill every chicken in a pen.Domestic dogs will run down and disembowel a deer and leave it still alive to run down another.

Posted by: Mars | October 12, 2007 06:58 PM

cocky-boy is indeed an evolution victim even if he wants par force to be the most enlightened on this blog!

Posted by: yoda | October 12, 2007 07:49 PM

ariel was that the same countrymen agreeing on sheep husbandry, or the person( I took it to be a female) who disagreed with my views on Kangaroo culling? try and be specific. I don't get it right all the time and I urge people to double check anything I say too, which I clearly said.
Incidently not all my replies get posted.
Actually the "mock" was in response to your "I'm not talking to them" stance.

Posted by: rojo | October 13, 2007 12:04 PM

Incidently the overwhelming evidence provided by SB can be viewed on sept 28 petablog, about helium.com should anyone feel the need to further denigrate me.

Posted by: rojo | October 13, 2007 12:23 PM

mars: you are always searching for the extremest examples and situations! in the same way as you perhaps saw wolves killing sheeps with pleasure i could tell you that i saw reports on things in wilderness which nobody would believe: a lion who adopted a gazelle, an elefant and a rinoceros as a couple, a man organizing tourist skin diving for to feed sharks, a lady riding on a (wild) whale shark, and a personal experience: exactly that one night in the year when my cat was in hospital a hazle-mouse entered the house from the veranda walking along the walls of the first floor, went to my dog, kissed his nose, then continued to my father's room, jumped on the frame of his father's photograph, stood up on two legs, cleaned his nose, then jumped down and disappeared! and this story is true - you see, there are many things about animals - good or bad - that are surprising us deeply!

Posted by: animalfriend | October 14, 2007 09:16 AM

Mars said, "the animal is incapable of emotions at that level."

Mars, how do you know this?

Also, do us all a favor when you respond to someone's comments—attach their name to the quote. You respond to different posters in a single post, and it appears you attribute multiple statements to an individual poster, when, in fact, the original statements are from different people.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 14, 2007 01:09 PM

" i saw reports on things in wilderness which nobody would believe: a lion who adopted a gazelle, an elefant and a rinoceros as a couple, a man organizing tourist skin diving for to feed sharks, a lady riding on a (wild) whale shark,"

So what? Animals do things for reasons unknown to us. That does not change their normal habits that I mentioned.FYI, I posted "fun" not pleasure.They are two different things.

Posted by: Mars | October 14, 2007 04:51 PM

Mike Q, I figured the poster would reconise his/her own post. I figured wrong I guess.
Animals are incapable of "higher" degrees of thought and emotion on a human level.They show like, not love, they show an unlike, not hate.

Posted by: Mars | October 15, 2007 12:30 PM

Rojo;

Yep, only about 2/3rds of my posts actualy appear on here.Deleted,censored,lost or whatever, it happens often.They own the blog so we will just have to live and deal with it.

Mike Q, OK. I don't gaurantee it but I'll try and remember to sort out the quotes better.

Posted by: Mars | October 18, 2007 08:34 AM

Mike Q, Would you rather force feed 50 geese to get 100 pounds of liver or regular feed 100 to get the same amount?

Posted by: Mars | October 19, 2007 10:56 AM

Mars,

I think it will help the other readers (some of whom may not post at all) to better understand your argument.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 19, 2007 11:09 AM

Not an argument but a discussion.Anyway;

Evidently, force feeding causes the liver to grow to twice it's normal size or more.So to get the same amount of product would require twice the geese by non force feeding.

I raised toulouse geese and really don't understand the biology behind what force feeding the geese does or why it does it.I do know farming and if a person can get twice of what is needed from one animal then for the farmer and animal that would be better.Again it's about using as much as you can or to use your term, "least harm".

Posted by: Mars | October 19, 2007 01:15 PM

You show signs of ignorance Ariel

An alternative to Foi Gras could be to feed ducky as much as he WANTS to eat, or give him some McDonalds!

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 26, 2007 10:44 PM