Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Read mo

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by yawares » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:29 pm

plwk wrote:Image No! No! NO! :mrgreen:
Dear Plwk,

Image

NO-no-no!!!!

yawares :jumping:

chownah
Posts: 7376
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by chownah » Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:41 pm

The body of an animal is not wasted if people don't eat it!!! SOMETHING will eat it. I think it's a bit self centered to think that if something does not benefit people then it is wasted.
chownah

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by yawares » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:13 pm

chownah wrote:The body of an animal is not wasted if people don't eat it!!! SOMETHING will eat it. I think it's a bit self centered to think that if something does not benefit people then it is wasted.
chownah
-----------
Dear Chownah,

Are you Thai?..Chownah means 'farmer' in Thailand....
And I like your answer ..'marg marg' (very much).

yawares(ex-Thai) :tongue:

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by Virgo » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:28 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Taking roadkill home to eat it would be a breech of the second precept. You are stealing food from the vultures. ;)
Do the vultures own the dead meat of an animal that was freshly hit? They don't. Besides, they rarely show up until the animal begins to rot.
Last edited by Virgo on Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by Virgo » Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:31 pm

chownah wrote:The body of an animal is not wasted if people don't eat it!!! SOMETHING will eat it. I think it's a bit self centered to think that if something does not benefit people then it is wasted.
chownah
People will eat meat. They can simply harvest more meat form the slaughterhouse, or from an animal shot with a rifle or bow then instead of taking the meat and leaving the vultures to feed of off carcasses that were not produced on the road.

You see, every carcass in Montana not harvested from the roadside is hundreds (or close to a hundred pounds if a deer) that will not be eaten by humans, however, humans will still eat meat, so in each instance another animal will have to be slaughtered at the slaughterhouse or intentionally killed by hunters to produce that meat. That is the whole reason I brought this up.

Would you want more animals to die, or less, is what it basically boils down to. That's the way I see it anyway. Perhaps you hold a different opinion on this.

Kevin

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by yawares » Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:20 pm

Dear Members,

Last sunday, on my way to Kroger..I saw a dead squirrel on the road near my house...2 crows were eating the meat/giblet of the dead squirrel...I pity poor squirrels..drivers hit them dead very often...there are many many squirrels around my neighborhood.

yawares :cry:

Roland
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 12:45 am

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by Roland » Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:05 pm

This seems logical to me. In India, apparently sandals/shoes are made from cows after they die a natural death. This looks like it is along the sames lines. Although I probably wouldn't eat any roadkill knowingly even if I was not a vegetarian.
manas wrote:A good idea, BUT I do wish that more effort was put in to safe places where wildlife can cross over roads, more warning signs for motorists, and such things, so that less wildlife gets hit and killed in the first place. We are the ones who came and built asphalt roads in their backyards, and who send tonnes of metal whizzing down them at speed, so we are the ones who ought to make those roads safer, for the wildlife as well as the humans.

manas :anjali:
There are so many wildlife crossings around the world! I think there should be more, of course. There is even one in Montana and apparently Netherlands has more than 600 wildlife crossings.

Here are a bunch of pictures
"No tree becomes rooted and sturdy unless many a wind assails it. For by its very tossing it tightens its grip and plants its roots more securely; the fragile trees are those that have grown in a sunny valley."

--Seneca the Younger (57 BCE- 65 AD)

chownah
Posts: 7376
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Roadkill For Dinner? Montana Wants To Make It Legal Rea

Post by chownah » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:04 pm

Virgo wrote:
chownah wrote:The body of an animal is not wasted if people don't eat it!!! SOMETHING will eat it. I think it's a bit self centered to think that if something does not benefit people then it is wasted.
chownah
People will eat meat. They can simply harvest more meat form the slaughterhouse, or from an animal shot with a rifle or bow then instead of taking the meat and leaving the vultures to feed of off carcasses that were not produced on the road.

You see, every carcass in Montana not harvested from the roadside is hundreds (or close to a hundred pounds if a deer) that will not be eaten by humans, however, humans will still eat meat, so in each instance another animal will have to be slaughtered at the slaughterhouse or intentionally killed by hunters to produce that meat. That is the whole reason I brought this up.

Would you want more animals to die, or less, is what it basically boils down to. That's the way I see it anyway. Perhaps you hold a different opinion on this.

Kevin
Kevin,
All animals that are born will die so it seems that it make little difference in the number of animal deaths.....Of course if fewer animals were born then there would be fewer deaths but I'm wondering if be reducing the number of animals born has any intrinsic value....is it better that an animal living a year or so and then dieing a bad thing.....or is it better if an animal lives a year or so and is eaten while still alive by a lion a better thing than being slaughtered for human consumption? I don't know.
chownah

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 53 guests