If i recall correctly, it’s because Illinois considers taking a roadkill deer to be “hunting”, so it actually uses up your deer permit which is insane (especially considering not all roadkill occurs during deer season).
People delinquent on child support are not allowed to hunt cause you could theoretically subsist on hunting and not have a job that produces money.
Lol of all the ways to get by off the books, hunting game for sustenance would be my last choice
Delinquent fathers are not allowed to have gardens in their yards. They have been banned from doing any photosynthesizing as well.
Deadbeat plant dads: guess I’ll just die then.
I mean, if I was already a licensed hunter … and you can get a lot of non-meat food by foraging if you know how.
People delinquent on child support are not allowed to hunt cause you could theoretically subsist on hunting and not have a job that produces money.
So … can you farm?
If you have land to farm on, I suppose.
Since you won’t be making any money, I think it’s fine.
Now I’m imagining a naked deadbeat dad pummeling deer to death with his fists and eating the raw flesh. “That’ll show ya Susan!”
Ahhh I figured it was because that deer rightful belongs to the child. So he could take the deer, but only if he was delivering it to his ex’s house.
deleted by creator
Better pay child-support, or no roadkill for you!
What if the deer is also a deadbeat father?
It’s weird how many people didn’t know that even after an animal is killed the meat is still good
If you weren’t there to kill it then it’s not safe to eat. You have no idea what happened before you got there.
Even if you were the one that hit it, it may have chronic wasting disease and you wpuld have been unable to observe its behavior before hand. Eating roadkill, especially deer, is a terrible idea.
We’re not even sure humans can catch CWD. Unless you’re in an area where it’s prevalent, I wouldn’t sweat it.
Agreed, unless you witnessed the hit from another car.
Well. I guess we’re lucky that most of the time when you hit a deer with a vehicle, you’re also there when it happens.
But thanks chief, I don’t know what we’d have fucking done without you here…
The text speaks of unclaimed roadkill though
What about the free gum under tables? Can we enjoy that at least?
Well of course, thats what it is there for.
there’s a wee little time limit but yeah.
my favorite meal growing up was opossum belly surprise!
Wait for real?
nahhh not opossum. that was a running joke dad had for years
my family did take a deer that our cousin hit in a truck tho
frfr ong no cap real talk straight dopenvm meanies.
Not only is it still good, it’s basically vegan. In fact, leaving roadkill on the road side often results in more animal death as scavengers come to the scene.
What if you pulled it out off the edge so they could feast more safely? Although I suppose if the road is downwind they’d have to cross it as they come.
I think “basically vegan” is quite a stretch. You couldn’t be sure it didn’t live immobile and in pain for awhile, nor that it wasn’t hit on purpose.
Not vegan myself. My main reason for not eating roadkill is that I’m not good enough at judging how long it’s been lying there, nor whether it had some crazy disease, even if the vehicle is what killed it.
I’m not sure what anyone could call the “official” definition of being vegan, but I think a reasonable definition is that a vegan is someone who tries to live such that they cause the minimum amount of suffering to animals possible.
Buying meat is obviously bad because it creates a market for meat, but finding meat does not create a market for meat, and therefore wouldn’t increase animal suffering. It doesn’t matter if someone hit it on purpose or if the animal suffered while it died, your actions haven’t caused that. Utilizing scavenged meat does not cause suffering to more animals (and in fact, it likely reduces it).
I would even argue that if you find a mortally wounded animal, it’s kinder to put it out of its misery than to leave it be, but that’s literally the trolley problem, and it’s up for debate.
This is all somewhat moot, though, cause I’d wager that 99.9% of all vegans are also just dietarily vegetarian in that they don’t want to consume meat even if it was ethically sound.
Vegan just means nothing from animals - no meat obviously, no cheese, milk, eggs, etc
The reasoning behind it is different for each person
Some just don’t like meat for instance or can’t stomach diary products.
What about honey?
What about jellyfish?
Obviously not vegan…?
Fair enough about honey, but with jellyfish I think it starts to get into the idea that the distinction between plants and animals isn’t as clear cut as people imagine.
Jellyfish are classified animals, in the same phylum as coral, sea anenomes, and a parasite that lives inside the cells of fish.
Obviously we need to classify them somewhere, but in terms of the ethics of eating them for food they seem closer to plants than mammals to me. After all plants can also communicate, and respond to stimuli including sending out warning signals when they’re being eaten (are they suffering? No way of knowing, consciousnessis not well defined).
Hmmm…Shoplifting meat doesn’t create a market, in fact it discourages the market from carrying meat because they lose money on it…
Not necessarily. The bladder and other internal organs can rupture inside from the collision.
Psssst… nobody checks and there’s so much free meat out there. You’d be a fool not to collect it.
