Gator Tail Anyone?

Here in Florida, there are some restaurants that serve Gator Tail. Usually, it is served as an appetizer.

Gator Tail Appetizer ©Skipper Fish Camp

While we were walking around Gatorland on our last trip, I noticed some Black Vultures very near the end of an alligator. They were across the pond, so I zoomed in to see what they were doing.

I’m thinking to myself:

#1 – These birds are crazy being that close to the gator.

#2 Maybe they are picking bugs or weeds off of its tail.

Cropped after I got home.

Before I tell more, let me continue on with the rest of the visit. When we got to my favorite part where the birds ride on the alligators (See Gatorland’s Taxi Service), I was again videoing the activities. I noticed on the little island that some more Black Vultures were again at the tail of another large alligator.

Egret on Gator Taxi and Vultures at Gator’s Tail by Lee

Vulture at Gator’s Tail – Zoomed by Lee

Vulture at Gator’s Tail – Zoomed by Lee

Here is a crop of the crop. You can see him actually eating the meat right out of a living alligator. He couldn’t even wait for them to batter and fry up a piece for him.

Zoom of a zoom

I also took a video of some of this:

Now I see why Vultures are on the “Do Not Eat” list! They are a Bird of the Bible after all.

“‘These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind,” (Leviticus 11:13-15 NASB)

Birds of the Bible – Vulture

Birds of the Bible

Good News Tracts – Various Topics


9 thoughts on “Gator Tail Anyone?

  1. That is intriguing how the gators allow it to occur, it makes me wonder whether it is therapeutic in some way for the gator?! We have tried crocodile pies and various dishes over here, and it is a little like chicken.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Not sure if it’s therapeutic or not, or whether was too tired to turn around. It had been cold for several days, and this was one of the first days of warmth. Most of the gators were just laying around soaking up the warmth. :)

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I love (living) gators so much that I’m not sure I can bring myself to eat one. But I have heard they are tasty (but what isn’t tasty when battered and deep fried!). I know gator tails get injured quite a bit, but I’ve never seen a vulture pecking on a living one. Very neat to see. William

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Believe it or not, I once practiced alligator law in Texas, i.e., I requested a change (thru a “notice & comment online email) unto a Texas Register-noticed proposed Texas wildlife regulation, and my proposed adjustment to that regulation was accepted (i.e., adopted by the government agency and substituted for the regulation that was originally proposed by the government). It was so exciting to see the notice-and-comment process actually work that my wife and I went to Razoo’s Restaurant to celebrate — of course, you guessed it, I have Cajun-fried alligator tail for my main entree. It was tasty, yes, but a bit challenging on my digestive system. From your observations, Lee, I now see that I have tastes in common with black vultures.

    Liked by 1 person

      • It was a public comment on Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s proposed new regulation 31 TAC § 65.363(i)(3), which was defective as originally written because it clashed with Exodus 21:28-29. …
        From: Jim Johnson
        Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2011 3:11 PM
        To: ‘’
        Cc: Jim Johnson
        Subject: Comment on proposed reg 31 TAC section 65.363(i)(3)
        Change the proposed text of 31 TAC section 65.363(i)(3), by substituting “42.092” for “42.09”, – – – so that the proposed text of 31 TAC section 65.363(i)(3), would read:
        (3) treat or allow the treatment of an alligator in a cruel manner as defined in Penal Code, §42.092.

        Since alligators are “inherently dangerous” animals, they should be treated as non-livestock animals (not as livestock).
        The dichotomy between “livestock” and “nonlivestock”, already recognized in the Texas Penal Code (as shown by the contrast between its Section 42.09 and its Section 42.092) is based upon the qualitative difference between domesticated animals (live cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, swine, etc.) and inherently-wild-and-often-dangerous animals (like lions, tigers, pythons, certain inherently vicious dogs, etc.).
        The proposed regulation, at 31 TAC section 65.363(i), incorporates by reference a Penal Code provision [section 42.09 which is titled “Cruelty to Livestock Animals”] that was legislatively intended to apply to “livestock” animals, in contrast to the Penal Code provision that is legislatively designed for the treatment of “non-livestock” animals [section 42.092 which is titled “Cruelty to Nonlivestock Animals”].
        As a practical matter (based on the history of agriculture), “livestock” animals are generally domesticated and thus not “inherently dangerous”, so some of the defenses are unnecessary (for those who injure or kill domesticated animals), — whereas wild (non-domesticated) animals are often “inherently dangerous” by nature, and the law should realistically recognize this biological/ecological/agricultural difference by recognizing the need for common-sense defenses (such as is noted below).
        Because they are inherently dangerous by nature, never-been-captured alligators and captured-but-escaped alligators are both quite capable of (and dispositionally inclined to) killing humans, injuring humans, and other forms of violent destruction (including killing and injuring domesticated animals), so the Penal Code defenses legislatively applied to nonlivestock animals should be applied to alligators in Texas, regardless of whether those alligators uncaptured or captured-but-escaped.
        The demonstrated foreseeability of an animal being dangerous/vicious is a characteristic that is relevant to legal responsibility. See, accord, Bangert v. Shaffner, 848 S.W.2d 353, 355 n. 3 (Tex. App. – Austin 1993, writ denied 1994) (“The term ‘inherently dangerous’, often used interchangeably with ‘ultra-hazardous,’ more accurately describes an activity that requires a higher degree of care than ordinary care, or even imposes strict liability for resulting damages. These activities include owning dangerous animals and storing combustible gases.”), citing Marshall v. Ranne, 511 S.W.2d 255 (Tex. 1974) (case involved animal of known “vicious propensities”). See also, accord, EXODUS 21:28-29 (emphasizing how legal responsibility for harm, caused by a vicious animal, should be recognized based upon the foreseeability of harm, because an animal known to have vicious propensities should be treated differently than one that is not foreseeably dangerous).
        “Nuisance alligators’ are, by definition, public and private “nuisances”, — and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department should take official notice that they are inherently vicious, — and should be treated more like wild (“nonlivestock”) animals than like “domesticated”/”tame” (“livestock”) animals, for Texas Penal Code purposes.

        Surely the “inherently dangerous” nature of alligators is so well known as to not need scientific verification. (But, if need be, to confirm that point regarding the nature of alligators, see Dr. Jobe Martin & Dan Breeding’s DVD “Silent Hunters” (Creation Proclaims, volume #3, see ), which features educational footage on alligators and their behavioral traits.) By incorporating the section applicable to “nonlivestock animals”, the new regulation would thus incorporate these common-sense defenses, which are reasonable for people who, especially under exigent circumstances, must interact with wild (i.e., “inherently dangerous”) alligators: (d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the actor had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the actor or to another person by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code; or (2) the actor was engaged in bona fide experimentation for scientific research. (e) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (b)(2) or (6) that: (1) the animal was discovered on the person’s property in the act of or after injuring or killing the person’s livestock animals or damaging the person’s crops and that the person killed or injured the animal at the time of this discovery; or (2) the person killed or injured the animal within the scope of the person’s employment as a public servant or in furtherance of activities or operations associated with electricity transmission or distribution, electricity generation or operations associated with the generation of electricity, or natural gas delivery. Thank you for your due consideration of this comment to proposed 31 TAC section 65.363(i)(3).
        James J. S. Johnson, Esq. . . .

        [ proposed ] §65.363. Nuisance Alligator Control.
        (a) Permit Required. Except as provided in §65.49(g) of this title (relating to Alligators), no person may take, kill, transport, sell, or release a nuisance alligator, or offer to take, kill, transport, sell, or release a nuisance alligator unless that person possesses a valid nuisance alligator control permit issued by the department.
        * * * * *
        (i) Prohibited Acts. It is an offense for a permittee to:
        (1) violate a provision of this subchapter;
        (2) violate a condition of a permit issued under this subchapter; or
        (3) treat or allow the treatment of an alligator in a cruel manner as defined in Penal Code, §42.09.

        Liked by 1 person

Please leave a Comment. They are encouraging.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s