I certainly didn't mean to imply any methods are perfect or without the opportunity to go wrong.

Hopefully nobody got that idea from what I said.

I'll reiterate: I'm not a butcher, so my knowledge is limited. I do, however, still eat meat despite all that I know about it.

The peacocks I've seen are so loud they can be heard at the top of a 25 story condo. I've literally seen people sell their condos because of the damn peacocks. Maybe they only have peahens?

And barely by the laws of physics.

slightly less aggressive honk

You gots a problem with the gooses and you gots a problem with me.

I like em. But I also don't have to walk near them or where they poo, so take my opinion as you will.

Here's the thing. You said "peacocks are endangered." Is Green peafowl in the same genus? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies peacocks, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls peacocks endangered. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "peacocks" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Pavonini, which includes things from indian peafowl to mbulus to green peafowl. So your reasoning for calling a peacocks endangered is because random people "call the ornamental birds peacocks?" Let's get mandarin ducks in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A green peafowl is a green peafowl and a member of the pavo genus. But that's not what you said. You said peacocks are endangered, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the pavonini tribe endangered, which means you'd call indian peacocks, congo peafowl, and other peacocks endangered, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?

They recognized a blind spot in their knowledge, did some learning, then reported back with what they learned. Then you yelled at them? It’s not like they were being combative.

I can't find any mention of the specific species of peafowl the man had. My personal guess is that it's just a stock image of a peacock. None of the articles below mention the species, but one does have the same mugshot.

https://apnews.com/article/peacocks-killed-florida-man-arrested-e1466f377234c6bc30f3c761c09f4607

https://nypost.com/2025/09/30/us-news/florida-man-arrested-for-allegedly-killing-cooking-and-eating-pet-peacocks/

https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/florida-man-eats-pet-peacocks-dispute-neighbor-feeding-them-craig-vogt-pasco-county-sheriffs-office-tampa-bay/

Quoting the AP article,

The 61-year-old man from Hudson, Florida, was arrested last week on a third-degree felony charge of aggravated animal cruelty, according to an affidavit from the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office.

The man told investigators that he had killed the two peacocks because his neighbor kept feeding them. He had written the neighbor a letter telling her that he would continue to kill his pet peacocks if she kept feeding them “to prove a point,” according to the affidavit, which didn’t say how many peacocks he kept.

The man “admitted to killing the bird by cutting the bird’s neck out of spite, then bleeding it out, and then later eating the bird after cooking it on a frying pan,” the affidavit said.

So it doesn't seem so simple as him merely getting arrested for deciding to eat one of his peafowl.

Killing an endangered animal and cruelty to animals are separate statutes. So I think it's safe to safe it's not an endangered peafowl.

• https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899%2F0828%2FSections%2F0828.12.html
• https://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399%2F0379%2FSections%2F0379.411.html "level four violations" are also third degree felonies. So it's possible it wasn't mentioned because it's "just as bad" as the other.

I don't care enough to pull the man's actual court records and see if he was also charged with Intentional killing or wounding of any species designated as endangered, threatened, or of special concern.

If anyone wants to sleuth on this further, feel free.

but those are also cultural.

horses? food in France.

So, who's asked whether it is "tasty" or not?
What if someone fed a really bad diet to chicken and as a result the produce was not tasty to anyone that bought it? Can the seller now get jailed for selling non-tasty chicken (or for having killed those chicken prior to selling them)? :P

Also, I never really found chicken tasty, out of the few times I tried. Once, it was, due to the marination, but then it's the marination ingredients that are really tasty. So I guess you are better off not referring to me when deciding what is legal :P