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

[yawares]

No! No! NO!

Dear Plwk,



NO-no-no!!!!

yawares

[chownah]

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

[yawares]

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)

[Virgo]

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.

[Virgo]

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

[yawares]

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

[Roland]

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.

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

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

[chownah]

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