Well, good for her!

That is similiar to 4H. They too raise animals for sale (some of them). That would have been my DD. She hates killing anything. Guess that is why grew up raising some strange things, like a kanagroo mouse!

I like a girl that sticks to her convictions.

:)

Good for her!! I can understand that the meat we eat comes from a once living animal, hopefully it was killed in the most human way (I;m not naive to think so, though) I do eat meat, but not from a pet that I've named and raised, for crying out loud. Yes, those who live the farm lifestyle, may be used to the natural order of killing animals, but for a person who isn't, this would be very traumatic. Just my opinion.

Whitney deserves an award from the swchool for this. She is showing grown-up courage and character. Reminds me of when my kids were in Middle School. Everyone had been given a fund-raiser, a catalog full of gifts and candy items to take home and "sell" and the money raised would be used toward school and sporting activities. Yet a few of the kids actually read the catalog and decided they didn't want to sell fattening chocolates and nuts. Didn't their health class teach them about healthy eating and the food pyramid? So they decided they would not sell anything. Yes, there was some peer pressure and pressure from teachers and staff for the hold-outs to participate in the sale. Yet they remained steadfast, it got covered in National Newspapers and the school stopped fund-raising by this method. Whitney deserves an award!

I'm glad the girl stood up for what she believed in. There are better ways to teach kids where their food comes from.

Good for her. I couldn't take some kind of science course in school because you had to cut up a frog!!

i did take the class but the teacher excused anyone who couldn't disect the frog, thank goodness...

One of the messages at the end of the item said she deserved an F. I disagree. She did everything required except slaughter her chicken, so that was not a complete failure.

If learning to slaughter a chicken was so important why could not just one chicken be used and everyone watch?

I watched chickens being prepared for table use as a child, and never have done it, but I remember how if it becomes necessary.

I wanted to reply to the article in the newspaper but did not want to register.

She probably could not have done that without the support of her family. It was a very brave thing for her to do and a very poor choice of lessons by the teacher. It's one thing to dissect a frog you got from a pond, but to have them bond with the chicken then slaughter it????

I couldn't have killed Chicklet either. Good for her!!

Her parents should be very proud, they raised a good, compassionate young woman.

That is so sad. Chickens are completely capable of bonding to humans and then to be killed by them? Makes me sick. It's like raising your cat or dog then killing it.

Good for her. I would have done the same thing.

I don't understand how people can eat animals.

When I was in FFA we had to kill and dress a chicken. Then we had a cookout. I think it was a valuable lesson, BUT to have the children name and practically raise it as a pet is WRONG!
Unless you grew up on a farm...it can be so traumatic. There would be a lot more vegetarians in this world if people only knew...
I was proud she stood up for herself.

Most kids can understand where meat comes from without killing an animal which basically became a pet.

Ditto what socks said.

Ya!!! for her!!! When I was little we raised a calf we named him Danny Boy .well when it came time to butcher him we all cryed we road him played with him .Daddy ended up selling him.

I did grow up on a farm and once we named something, we never slaughtered it for food for our table. I'm sure that these animals were sold and slaughtered by someone but we never knew about it. Our parents protected us from that. While I don't agree that it is wrong to teach kids where their food comes from, I don't like their method at all.

First caveat: Assuming the article was accurate, complete and not hiding other information, I have a few thoughts.

Although I disagree with the way this went down, I'll give her credit for taking responsibility that few do (including and especially her parents) by offering to pay restitution.

She could and should have simply changed classes. She also could have simply refused to kill the chicken in the class and stay in class. She could have even walked out of class and gone to the office. There's a lot of far better options. Her parent's should have gotten involved if necessary to do this. But that wouldn't get the newspaper attention the way this did.

It is never too late to drop a class, contrary to the comment in the article, a comment which is glaringly unsubstantiated. This event was done more as a publicity stunt than a matter of heroism and rather than being participants in this scheme, her parents would have been better off parenting and contacting school officials, but that would be doing their job wouldn't it. If it is such a big thing (and I don't suggest it's not a big thing to her) then it would have been better to pull her from the class as the objection rather than become accomplices. Or just say I won't do it, and it should have been made clear throughout the process. Just tell the teacher, office and probably a counselor about it, with the (albeit absentee) parents involved, this wouldn't have had to go like it did, unless it was desired.

I don't fault her at all for not wanting to slaughter the chicken. And though I applaud people who stand up for their convictions there's better ways than she chose and I do fault the scheme that clearly was a publicity stunt for self-promotion. And she deserved better parental counseling than "I'll be your wheel-man" and "I'll turn you in". There were far better options available if their intention wasn't so self-centered.

I also notice that apparently the rest of the class wasn't as traumatized as is suggested they'd be.

And I also find it ironc, after a number of people made a big thing about a TV commercial and saying it is (supposedly) telling kids it's OK to "lie", isn't this telling kids it's OK to "steal"? I certainly don't suggest she should be prosecuted but the three of them are parties to theft of public funds. Especially with the available alternatives, and given what was done and how it was done, and with the disclaimer that there's only one source of information on it so far, nevertheless, this just reeks of "balloon boy" to me. I wonder if they've hired a publicist yet.

I just have to add these tid-bits.

When my DS was five we were moving and could not take his pet roster with us. He agreed to give it to one of our friends, but only after he talked personally with him and made him promise not to kill and eat it.

My DD say she is not a vegetarian; she just wont eat anything that ever had a face! She won't eat eggs because her uncle told her when she real little that there was a baby chicken inside the eggs.

DH and I were having dinner with friends one evening and we had roast beef. These friends raised a few beef cattle. One of their children very calmly asked if this was Sloopy. It was.

About the girl who kidnapped the chicken. I think she could have gotten the message across in a much less dramatic way by just refusing to kill the chicken right then and there. Don't know what the retribution would have been, but it would have gotten the message across without all the hi jinks.

Sue

This was a class project and they all knew that they were supposed to raise FOOD.

The first BIG mistake was by the teacher that required them to name it. If you are raising it for food, you don't name it!

After that, the girl knew it was to be food and should not have made it a pet.

I would not hold it against the girl for not completeing the class, because the teacher required wrong-doing.

Another point: anyone who is against killing animals should not sign up for that sort of class, and should not plan on going into that kind of career.

I grew up in agricultural area. We raised critters for food. I learned very very young. Animals for food are going to be slaughtered. Feed them, water them and watch to make sure they are growing and in good health. That is all. Do not name them, do not get attached to them.
We had our pets of course and they were named, loved and petted members of the family. They lived in the house, played and exercised with their kid, were bathed and groomed regularly and would be taken to vet for checkups and shots just like kids went to Dr. at least once a year. If a pet died they had a funeral/memorial service just like any other member of the family. Pets would not be slaughtered.
How stupid it is to encourage a child to become a caregiver and name a food critter (or any animal to be food) then expect the child to slaughter it and eat it.
What the heck is a school doing confusing animal science and food production in one class? ZOOLOGISTS do NOT need food production for a degree. Animal science is a broad subject of animal physiology and psychology, much needed for a zoologist. If the class offered only THE science of food production, a diagram of how to feed and care for animals produced for food, Whitney should not have been in this class. Food productions should be part of a Husbandry. Another class agricultural areas have and included is breeding and caring for food animals. NOT necessary for zoologists.

LIL