Talk:Roadkill cuisine

Main Page feature

As a vegan, I lament the above. Enough nonsense about veganism floats around without a popular website pumping out more, especially of such an egregious variety. --81.141.221.224 (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See lower section, that fixes this problem. SADADS (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And now we have a section on nutrition. It just gets more ridiculous. One would almost think someone has a vested interest in promoting the consumption of roadkill . . . Cash-strapped local authorities, perhaps? "Do your bit for the community by eating only tyre-marked local meat!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.221.201 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• To some, the method of disposal of 1.5 million deer and countless other animals killed by vehicles each year is more important than the latest Sega video game. Wikipedia does not force editors or readers to make choices about which topics are important - there is room for all as long as they are notable. All articles should give a balanced view of all relevant aspects of the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, using one dynamic IP's edit list in order to take an uninformed (but presumably very enjoyable) swipe at someone's ranking of things and their importance in the world. Nicely done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.221.238 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin and protein content?

...the animals that roadkill scavengers eat are naturally high in vitamins and proteins with lean meat and little saturated fat...

As far as I could see, the two sources given for that section did not mention roadkill's nutritional content, and I am rather skeptical of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Gentleman (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I originated that statement, giving a source that has since been removed for some reason. I did a quick search and found this source, which confirms the statement for deer and their relatives and notes that rabbit is particularly healthy. Raccoon, squirrel and opossum are high in some minerals and vitamins, but also high in cholesterol according to this source, which seems reliable. Maybe the article should have a table that compares the different meats? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wild game tends to be very lean. Internal organs are very nutritious. All meat is high in protein. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rearranged the table started by Logical Gentleman to make it easier to add/edit entries for different species, and put in blank entries for most of the species mentioned in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This site gives information based on 3 ounces of meat. http://www.ca.uky.edu/HES/fcs/factshts/FN-SSB.044.PDF. SADADS (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good source - I have converted to 100grams and added info from it. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Key Deer

The choice of Key Deer as the lead image is unusual. As an endangered subspecies, this is probably the only (sub)species in the article where consumption is unambiguously illegal at a federal level (in the US). Besides, the image doesn't actually imply that anyone is eating this venison. --Aranae (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Burgoo is a more reasonable image. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To let an endangered species go to waste seems particularly outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A juvenile Key deer is called a fawn.

• The driver of a heavy-duty truck has a choice between swerving away from or towards the deer. Since there is no evidence that there is unusual demand for the meat from the endangered Key Deer it seems best to post warnings, impose heavy fines and deny any reward. If there were great demand for this particular venison, perhaps farming would be the better answer. I can't understand why commercial sale of venison is illegal in the USA and Canada - it is legal elsewhere from the UK to Malaysia. Deer in general are not endangered. But that is all POV. I agree with the points Aranae makes. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of killing humans in the U.S., the deer the is #1 most dangerous animal. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow that reminds me of Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l'attaque, il se defend. - not exactly the same, of course. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aymatth, your position against natural selection seems to reflect a fanatical religious view. There's no room for zealotry when it comes to roadkill cuisine. It's a free for all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'd agree in general, but these deer look like Bambi. Look at those big brown eyes. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

somebody should submit this to wp:GAN

Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you jest. --81.141.221.224 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Rationals and Vegan Perspectives

They were the same paragraph, with the same references (repeated in the list for some reason), I've deleted the later. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegan?

It seems that the term veganism applys to eating no animal products at all, why is it used differently here? Ref 4, does not call them still vegans, but that they were vegan and became carnivores, I think your terms are misleading. I would consider refocusing the section to how people concerned with animal rights are more willing to acknowledge roadkill as legitimate meat as compared to farmed meat. I will start cleaning up based on the one internet source, but someone with the books needs to clean up that section. SADADS (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• One definition of veganism is a "philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment." The natural cycle and interconnectness of all life are, I think, fairly basic concepts in the vegan philosophy. Obviously there will be different interpretations, but one could be that animals should not be deliberately killed, but if accidentally killed could reasonably be eaten as part of the natural cycle. I suspect this would be seen by many vegans as a "heretical" intepretation, but perhaps the adherents to it would still see themselves as vegans. Maybe - I don't know much about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Roadkill eaters are not vegans, even if they say they are. To quote the Vegan Society "Vegans eat a plant-based diet, with nothing coming from animals". The whole 'vegan' section seems to have been included for humorous effect more than anything. The sources used are a self-published pamphlet, a not particularly reliable looking website, and a jokey article from PETA - all in all not at all convincing.--Michig (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • Veganism is not a philosophy, it is a lifestyle choice. However, the choice and implementation of it can be due to a feeling that animals are cruelly treated before they are eaten. I agree with Michig, good call. SADADS (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on vegans states that: "The most common reasons for becoming a vegan are ethical commitment or moral conviction concerning animal rights, the environment, human health, and spiritual or religious concerns.[2][4][5] Of particular concern to many vegans are the practices involved in factory farming and animal testing, and the intensive use of land and other resources for animal farming." So, while it may come as a shock and horror to some vegans, there are some in the vegan community who think eating roadkill is ethical and consistent with these values. It's an interesting position, and it was an interesting hook. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit like arguing that some vegetarians eat chicken.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I meat lots of "vegetarians" who eat fish and chicken. Your definition of something isn't necessarily everyone elses. I don't consider people who eat fish and chicken vegetarian and I don't think people who eat roadkill are vegan. But it's an interesting position that it should be allowed or even encouraged and that it is consistent with the ideologies involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Some Christians are violent racists. Their behavior seems inconsistent with the ethical values given in the New Testament, but they consider themselves Christian and may in fact believe their actions are justified by the Bible. The article can be worded to show that the "vegan scavengers" have a very original interpetation of vegan principles. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• My quotation on Veganism as a philosophy comes from the Vegan Society charter. On the other hand, the next statement in the charter is "In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." I agree that the article should be neutral and should avoid needless offense to any group. The article seems to be moving towards a wording that manages this, saying "self-styled" vegans. Maybe there should be clearer point made that this is far from mainstream vegan thinking. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have tried to make the discussion in the section on "Rationales" more balanced. This issue could of course be the subject of an article in itself. Is the objection to eating meat primarily about the health of the consumer, the suffering of animals, the wastefulness of animal farming, or is there some deeper revulsion? Is there a moral objection to humans competing with roadkill scavengers such as vultures and coyotes? I suspect it will take some time before the article stabilizes. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What does everyone think about the edits Aymatth2 made? I think they help emphasis the uncommon nature of individuals titled "vegans" eating roadkill. SADADS (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Aymatth2 is wonderful. That he took the time to appease the sensitivities of the those vegans whose radical fanatacism caused them to be intolerant of anyone who differed from their personal viewpoints and opinions is a testament to his good nature. I'm sure he must be Buddhist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made a correction - the group described isn't a vegan collective - the source doesn't describe them as such and neither do they. If other editors correct errors, that's improving the encyclopedia, not evidence of "radical fanaticism" or "intolerance". Such attacks are not welcome here.--Michig (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the vegan society articles of association as it does not mention roadkill at all. It should be self-evident that people and groups concerned with animal welfare/rights would wish to avoid animals dying on the roads. Also, Peter Singer is not a vegan by his own admission, and does not represent The Vegan Society, or is even to the best of my knowledge a member, so I have removed the link between the two. Can we cease these attempts to link the eating of roadkill to veganism please, unless sources emerge that can allow this without synthesis, OR, and a large dollop of POV?--Michig (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly there is a debate and discussion over the issue [1]. Also [2]. You seem to find it personally upsetting, but this is an encyclopedia not your personal soap box to impose your views on others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Will you give the hostility and insults a rest please. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, which is why we deal with facts, and should attempt to avoid including misleading information. So there's a dissussion going on on a forum somewhere - great, but not relevant to an encyclopedia. The only thing I find upsetting is articles such as this containing misinformation. You're the one that seems to be trying to link roadkill to veganism when there are no reliable sources that back that up. My views are not the issue here and i'm not trying to "impose my views on others" - the issue is what is supported by reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Chew the Right Thing, quotes Peter Singer as saying "I am largely vegan but I’m a flexible vegan." That content and source were removed by Michig. I get the sense that Peter Singer was initially highly respected within the Animal Rights and Vegan movements, but there is controversy about his recent opinions. His self-characterization as a type of vegan is now offensive to some, but does seem sort of interesting and relevant. Removing it may be a form of POV: "He can't be a vegan if he condones eating roadkill. The article should not reproduce his claim to be vegan, because he isn't, in my view." Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Singer is, as you say, "largely vegan". Since veganism is a well-defined, complete form of vegetarianism, anyone who is not vegan all the time is not a vegan - that is Singer's view, not just my own, which is why he describes himself as "largely vegan" - whether or not he condones eating roadkill is irrelevant to this. This isn't something that causes any offence to me, and I have no negative views towards Singer; I removed the mention of how he describes himself as it isn't relevant, not because it was offensive, and I resent the implication that I'm pushing a POV here. If the Vegan Society come out with a statement on the eating of roadkill, I would absolutley support including it here. Singer is far better-known as a writer on issues such as animal rights, so I don't understand why that wasn't emphasized rather than attempting to use his statement as a link to veganism. His claim to being "almost vegan" is irrelevant to the article unless the aim of that section is to push a POV that eating roadkill is linked to veganism, which is exactly what this section was a couple of days ago.--Michig (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Move

If an admin can move this back to "roadkill cuisine" (roadkill one word) that would be great. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twilsonb (talk • contribs)

Globalise: US, UK, AU Perspectives Only

The entire article deals only with English-speaking countries. The Intro and first two sections seem to be heavily US-focused. Can someone with knowledge of roadkill in other countries please add appropriate information. twilsonb (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

-- There should be some sources for Germany at least. Depending on the state, roadkill belongs to the local hunter and is often used for food when it's still fresh and from an animal that is considered edible. Collecting roadkill -depending on state and what kind of animal it is- can be considered as poaching and therefore as a criminal offense -- 188.193.35.96 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles in other languages

If anyone who lives in the non-English-speaking world would like to put together one or more Wikipedia articles about roadkill in other countries and languages, some of these objections would be addressed. Relevant portions of other articles could also be translated into English, and vice versa. 108.246.205.134 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Flattened fauna

• "Roadkill" is not always "flattened fauna". If it has been hit glancingly and thus thrown onto the verge, it may be little damaged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Roadkill only present in America?

I got news!, there is roadkill on other continents too. So maybe "American cousine" tag should be of a more general nature to take into the account that this phenoma is present in other countries too. Electron9 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Migrating to LDR

This article is very hard to edit, I'm going to migrate the references to LDR after some form of agreement is reached.--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 20:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth countries - Australia.

Section states: "Consumption of native species is only lawful if you possess a valid game hunting or scentific license". Not true, you can buy kangaroo, emu & crocodile meat in some supermarkets! The killing of native species without some sort of permit or licence is, however, illegal - maybe that's what it is trying to say? Swampy 101.161.35.28 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roadkill cuisine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090807040846/http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090728183251.aspx to http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090728183251.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)