Fans Of Lion Tacos Can Now Cancel Tucson Travel Plans

A Tucson restaurant created an uproar with last week’s announcement that it would be sell tacos made of lion meat. The owner freely admitted it was a publicity stunt, and apparently one that was too successful. Citing “many threats on the safety of our restaurant, our families, our customers and our vendors,” the owner said that he’d scrap the plans.

The Arizona Daily Star reports the owner received between 20 and 25 direct threats on his safety, which he reported to police.

The prospect of lion tacos also drew plenty of positive interest, with more than 100 would-be Mufasa munchers attempting to pre-order the exotic munchies.

Restaurant cancels lion tacos; owner cites threats [Arizona Daily Star]

Previously: Would You Eat A Lion-Meat Taco?


Edit Your Comment

  1. I just blue myself says:

    I’m kind of dissapointed. I would never actually eat one myself but I was looking forward to hearing how it tastes.

  2. Maximus Pectoralis says:

    I thought only “teabaggers” made violent threats against innocent people over trivial issues…?

    • dragonfire81 says:

      you forgot PETA.

    • Tightlines says:

      They just do it more often, and much louder.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        As opposed to completely peaceful, intellectually enlighened and rational groups including:

        Earth First (car bombing)
        Earth Liberationt Front (arson)
        PETA (animal slaughter)
        Animal Liberation Front (burglary, vandalism)
        Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (vandalism, piracy)

        Not to mention other great organizations including Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, MS-13, etc in our wonderful urban bastions of intellect such as Detroit, Newark, Washington DC, LA and so on. There are dozens of murders by these people on a daily basis but I suppose that’s just fine and dandy as long as they don’t use political rhetoric!

        • kmw2 says:

          The difference is, your grandma doesn’t belong to the Crips or the Bloods. (Or at least, she probably doesn’t.) The Tea Party isn’t the lunatic fringe, it’s the mainstream – with a lunatic fringe sensibility.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Please explain to me exactly what is “lunatic fringe” about the Tea Party’s core principles? Is it as “lunatic fringe” as advocating mass genocide or the complete destruction of the world’s economy to “save the planet” as environmentalists do?

            • AstroPig7 says:

              You complain about painting the Tea Party with a broad brush while you yourself do it to environmentalists? Hypocrite.

              • Maximus Pectoralis says:

                I still don’t see any examples of “lunatic fringe” other than how they apparently look. Should I expect an actual debate or just personal attacks on both myself and Tea Party supporters?

                And before you call me a hypocrite, maybe you should realize that mainstream environmentalists and environmentalist media have in fact called for such extreme measures.


                And of course the push for carbon taxes / “cap and trade” has been widely seen in recent years. The entire concept of that plan is to make it prohibitively expensive to use carbon-emitting fuels.

                • AstroPig7 says:

                  The Tea Party’s core principles might not be crazy, but many public examples of Tea Partiers certainly are. Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, birthers, and so on appear to be totally disconnected from reality. As for crazy environmentalists, there are quite a few, but I have yet to encounter any of them outside of the media. Some of my relatives are Tea Party supporters, and they are not as crazy as the public figures mentioned above.

                  • Maximus Pectoralis says:

                    And my point was that everyone shits all over the Tea Party movement when similar leftist movements have the same type of behavior. Apparently it is not excusable for Tea Party activists to do it, but environmentalists etc. get a pass.

                    And that, IMO, is the biggest problem with most “liberal” arguments. There is always a double standard. People ridicule the Tea Party here on a daily basis, making completely baseless claims, but if I offer a counter-argument with similar logic to point out the flaw in such arguments, I am labelled a hypocrite.

                    • AstroPig7 says:

                      I called you a hypocrite for using a broad brush, but I would call anyone else doing the same a hypocrite, as well. You just happened to be the one I noticed, so I apologize if it felt like I was singling you out.

                    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

                      I think you may have the only response in this entire thread that has some validity to it, and I do respect that. I wouldn’t actually argue that all environmentalists advocate extreme population control measures and such, but using that example is an effective means of making a counter point. The basis of my argument is that while Tea Party / Conservative / Libertarian / Constitution activists etc. are constantly under attack by the media and on this site, the main points used to attack them also often apply to Liberal / Environmentalist / Animal Rights etc. groups. And the supposed violent nature of Tea Party activists barely registers on the scale compared to the amount of violence every day in urban centers which almost exclusively vote Democrat.

            • Evil_Otto would rather pay taxes than make someone else rich says:

              Have you SEEN these people? If you had, you wouldn’t be asking.

              • Maximus Pectoralis says:

                Please explain. Really I’d like something more than “ZOMG they look crazy!” The same thing could be said about hippies, naked PETA supporters, Critical Mass activists etc.

                Really I have yet to see one single point anyone has posted that is not a personal attack. Way to use logic and reason…

        • danmac says:

          Are you saying that the Tea Party is the conservative political equivalent of ultra-liberal fringe groups? Because in comparing them to liberal radicals, that’s certainly what you’re implying. I’m fine with that.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Like any large, popular political movement, there will be radical fringe aspects to it. Not all environmentalists support burning down “green” houses or burning down hummer dealerships. Not all animal rights activists support attacking ships at sea or committing violence against non-vegans. But there are those who do. Just like there are members of the Tea Party movement who are violent and/or racist. If you are going to condemn the entire movement because of the actions of a very small minority, then you ought to apply the same standards to “liberal” movements that have been committing violent acts and using explosive rhetoric for decades. But of course you won’t because liberals are always “Do as I say, not as I do”. It’s OK for Al Gore to burn 20x as much energy in his house and fly in private jets all the time, but you better not dare put an energy-inefficient incandescent light bulb in your house!

    • danmac says:

      Your statement implies that no “teabaggers” like lions…are you sure that’s the case? Perhaps there’s a small militant arms of the organization that grew up loving the Lion King.

    • Kate says:

      No, only ‘tea baggers’ constantly walk around with guns to show how deadly they are. Other people are deadly too, they just don’t need the ego props.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        Your profound ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t disturbing.

        Please show me an example of “‘tea baggers’ constantly walk around with guns to show how deadly they are”. Maybe these would suffice though:

        Like these Street Gang Teabaggers?

        Sociology Degree Holder From Liberal College Teabagger?

        California High School Student Teabagger?

        Discovery Channel Office Hostage Taker (because their environmentalist programming wasn’t environmentalist enough in his opionion) Teabagger?

      • Snow Cube says:

        Wow… offeeeeensive. I feel safer with a gun. In places where it is allowed I will gladly conceal it but if that’s not an option then so be it. Never heard it called an “ego prop” before. More of an “in case of emergency…”

        • Maximus Pectoralis says:

          If you click on some of the links I have below, you will see examples of “ego prop”. Unfortunately none of them appear to be “teabaggers”.

          And for those who think guns are not necessary for personal defense, there’s a good saying: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!”. When I was young, there was a crazed drug addict who came to my house and started ramming into the front door, stabbing it with a 12″ carving knife and yelling obscenities. Fortunately the police made it in time. It was around 2:30 in the morning and the door held up for the 5 minutes or so it took the cops to arrive, though the lock had some damage to it. The guy told the cops he saw someone who he had a fight with run into my house (obviously not…). This is in a fairly peaceful town, just some kids at a party doing drugs and it got out of hand. Maybe when some of these people are threatened by criminals they will change their mind.

    • Consumeristing says:

      Good point. I heard Sarah Palin’s Campaign Poster of Death has lions in the crosshairs now.

    • EverCynicalTHX says:

      Congrats, your little self centered insistence on using a non-political consumerist topic to spew political rants makes you the biggest dickus on Consumerist.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        So animal rights activists making violent threats against a business and its owners, employees and customers is not a political issue?

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        And congratulations for attacking the person instead of attacking the idea. The idea being that not only “redneck” “teabagger” “conservatives” can potentially have violent tendencies. I presume that’s because the idea is based on sound logic so your only option is to attack me personally.

      • mythago says:

        Whoa now. That’s a BIG field of competition, sir.

    • regis-s says:

      I doubt anybody ever said “only” teabaggers made violent threats against innocent people over trivial issues. That being said, I didn’t see anything in the article saying the people making threats weren’t teabaggers.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        Unfortunately since no one person or group has claimed responsibility for their actions in making these threats, I am basing my argument on the assumption that the threats were made by animal rights activists, which tend not to be conservative or libertarian.

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      Like moths to a flame…


      Notice the curved horns up there.


      See this vast expanse of green-yellow skin? Over there we have an underbite revealing sharp canines. Notice the feet have hooked claws.

      Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call a troll. I must warn you feeding trolls is an extremely unrewarding past-time.

      • Maximus Pectoralis says:

        People say I generalize when I say “liberals” virtually always attack the person, not the idea.

        This thread is just about all the proof I need.

        In EVERY SINGLE REPLY there is not ONE example of the things people claim about Tea Party supporters. Yet there are lots of accusations, name-calling, etc.

        Now do you have an actual argument with my point or are you going to just spew out personal attacks like every other brainless libtard?

        • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

          Notice how I’m ignoring his remark and refusing to address him. This is proper procedure for dealing with a troll.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            Your retort is as valid as any other I’ve seen so far. I will simply assume you lack the intellectual sophistication to come up with a real debate point and instead rely on slander and name-calling to win any argument.

        • kelrod says:

          The mere use of the word “libtard” completely evaporated any respect I attempted to have for your position.

          • Maximus Pectoralis says:

            But of course “teabagger” is A-OK.

            Nothing like double standards.

            • kelrod says:

              Funny, I don’t remember posting my approval of the word “teabagger”.

              I just find it ironic that you complain about ad hominem attacks and then stoop to the level of those you rail against.

            • danmac says:

              The only one in this thread who has repeatedly used the word “teabagger” in this thread is you, Maximus. This is getting ridiculous.

              • Maximus Pectoralis says:

                It’s used all over this site in dozens of news items, particularly recently, and many of them only vaguely related to politics.

                I suppose since the violent radicals that are at the center of this news items are liberals, they get a free pass. But even the slightest mention of anything involving small government, economics, taxes, etc. and everyone comes out with the teabagger, redneck, “dey terk er jerbs” (even though the leftist Labor Unions really started that one..) etc.

                Maybe people don’t like the imperfections of their “educated open-minded enlightened” world-view being pointed out, but my whole point was to merely to point out that the stereotypes used by leftist against libertarian / responsible government activists also apply in many cases to leftist activists. Considering the extremely aggressive and violent backlash against what apparently is a new idea around here, I think it’s fairly clear that people aren’t willing to accept that the liberal utopia idea might not be entirely true.

    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

      Now I understand the main principles of “liberal” debate:

      1. Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is wrong
      2. Attack the man, not the idea
      3. Boast about your intellectual superiority and high level of education
      4. Belittle the concerns or beliefs of your opponent
      5. Make baseless claims and fail to back them up with proof or examples
      6. When you have no logical retort, name calling and accusations will suffice

      I created this thread to question the very popular current belief that only “conservatives” (and tea party supporters in particular) will resort to threats and violence. This has been a big topic in the media and discussions lately, particularly due to the Arizona shooting incident, the anti-conservative media firestorm, and the lack of evidence of affiliation by the radical, mentally disturbed shooter that follows.

      I believe this thread is relevant because it shows similar behavior by “the other side”. People are threatening harm against others due to the proposed consumption of meat. If I am wrong, I apologize in advance, but I am basing my argument on the assumption that the perpetrators are animal rights activists, who generally tend to be on the opposite side of the political spectrom from Tea Party / conservative / libertarian activists. The most important lesson to take from this situation is that violence and threats are not just a conservative problem, and seem to affect people of all political beliefs.

      However while I believe I have a valid point which deserves a lively debate, both myself and the “devil” i’m advocating in this instance (Tea Party) have been subject to ad-hominem attacks and baseless accustaions. I think this just reinforces my opinion that the people making these attacks, while claiming to be open-minded, enligtened and educated, are so set in their ways that they will resort to any means necessary to belittle someone with different ideas. It is rather ironic that people who implore “conservatives” to be open-minded would be so closed-minded themselves. But I guess I should not be surprised…

  3. laphroaigh says:

    OMG- this was a publicity stunt and so he was lion about the whole thing? What a cheetah. Well it made me click on the lynx, I suppose.

  4. Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:


    Say it again!


    Ooohhh! Say it again!!

    Mufasa, Mufasa, Mufasa!!

  5. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    Looks like Taco Bell isn’t the only one that’s got problems with the meat in its tacos.

  6. Thassodar says:

    Me and my car club were actually going to make a road trip out there for this. Now we can’t.

  7. smartmuffin says:

    Gotta love environmentalists. Save the lions but KILL ANY PERSON WHO MIGHT THREATEN THEM!

  8. Teechur says:

    Servals him right, if it was intended as a publicity stunt the whole time.

  9. veritybrown says:

    All “intense emotional reactions” to this aside, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to eat the meat of an obligate carnivore. The higher you are on the food chain, the unhealthier you are to eat.

  10. Arcaeris says:

    Don’t they FARM these lions? Like, they’re not in the wild and killed, they’re raised in a pen for meat?

    Do the protestors not realize that this is the same kind of place that beef comes from, but it’s just lion meat instead?

    • smartmuffin says:

      But Lions are cuter. We all know that 99% of all environmental activism is based on how cute the particular animal is.

    • SixOfOne says:

      There is no such thing (outside a nature preserve) called a free-range lion farm. There might be farms, but those lions are kept in tiny ass cages and probably starved half to death.

    • Plasmafox says:

      People who threaten people’s lives and livelihoods to get their way aren’t “protesters”, just plain old terrorists.

      • YokoOhNo says:

        is that you George W.?

        terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror, terror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        now piss your pants and do as i say!!!!!!!!!

  11. shthar says:

    Wasn’t this an episode of Bob’s Burgers?

  12. Cosmo_Kramer says:

    The best thing for a consumer site to do when a business attempts a publicity stunt is to give them more publicity.

  13. Pax says:

    That sucks. Granted, I didn’t really feel comfortable with the idea of slaughtering a Lion for it’s meat – hypocritical of me, I know, since I have no problem with COWS being slaughtered for meat. But, threats on their SAFETY??




    • Jasen says:

      How many animals has that lion slaughtered for meat? What’s the difference?

      • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

        A conscience.

        I’m a carnivore myself, but the argument that other animals eat meat is juvenile and stupid. Other animals don’t have complex moral codes.

      • Pax says:

        What has that got to do with anything?? Seriously?

        Yes, I admitted that “lion meat” was outside my personal comfort zone. And yes, I even admitted that my feeling that way was a little bit hypocritical, since I do eat beef (and chicken, and turkey, and ham, and fish), which involves slaughtering something so that I can consume it’s flesh.

        So on the one hand, I am somewhat glad that the event has been called off.

        But the actual point of my post was, that the restaurateur should never have been threatened, in order to dissuade him from using that meat. A protest, even a picket line – go for it, exercise that Free Speech, knock yourselves out.

        But, threats of violence? No. That’s just not cool.

  14. The Fake Fake Steve Jobs says:

    Guess you could say they were lion.

  15. Hooray4Zoidberg says:

    This seems like the “cute principle” at work. Would be people be making death threats over snake tacos?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Kind of like how some vegetarians insist they’re vegetarians, except they also eat fish. Or how a lot of animal rights activists go nuts when tests are done on monkeys but they don’t care so much for the mice, even though a majority of animal testing uses mice.

  16. mikeP says:

    Where’s all the death threats against killing poor innocent cows to make tacos?

    How is a lion any different than a cow?

    I mean I understand that some animals have different connotations, for example a Puppy Taco wouldnt go over very well. But I didnt realize that a Lion was so much more cute and adorable compared to a cow. Certainly not enough to make death threats over.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      I think it’s likely that the same people who are upset over beef are the ones upset over lions.

      • Pax says:

        No, it really isn’t. As another commenter said … it’s probably the “cute factor”. Lions are more cuddly than cows, to most people.

  17. AllanG54 says:

    The threats were probably caused by the fact that there’s a hell of lot less lions than there are cows and carnivores usually don’t taste as good as herbivores anyway.

    • Pax says:

      Neither of which justified threats of violence.

      Set up a picket line. Hand out fliers. Plaster the neighborhood – EVERY neighborhood you can gt to – with posters. Take out full-page ads in every newspaper in town. Preach from every streetcorner within a hundred miles … all fine.

      Threaten to HARM someone? That’s stepping over the line, period, no excuses.

  18. Kitteridge says:

    “an uproar”!

    It’s funny because … you know, lions….

    Oh, never mind.

  19. balance776 says:

    I’ve had lion plenty of times before, and though its a rather “rich” tasting meat, it is very good!

    I don’t see the issue with eating it either, since lions are not endangered or anything and are generally farm raised.

    sucks that this business owner was really just pulling a stunt though. I wouldn’t eat there based on that, rather then the issue of eating lions…

  20. dangermike says:
  21. HogwartsProfessor says:

    People need to relax. Boycotting a restaurant for doing something you don’t like is acceptable. Threatening people is not.