Asking for a friend.
you can’t trust it was killed for a legitimate reason
I’m probably being a little facetious here, I think I kind of get what you meant, but isn’t the whole reason “to sell it to someone who wants to eat it” regardless of which one was killed?
Like, if it was it was road kill (?) or something. Maybe a conservationist came into the possession of a freshly dead sturgeon and wants OP to cook it. I dunno, I’ve had similar things happen, I posted about the time I got to try kopi luwak here.
Otherwise, no, it’s farmed or you’re SOL. Eating endangered animals is generally agreed to be a dick move.
Like, if it was it was road kill (?) or something
I keep running into sturgeons in my car. Hate when that happens.
Hmm, I bet that would mess up your tires. They have tooth-like scales IIRC. It could be for research or some other kind of accident, I guess. The point being that it wasn’t a kill for food purposes.
Lemmy punishes being inexact so much (“ACKTUALLY”) I have to admit I’m a bit butthurt people are coming after me for mentioning the only edge case.
I’m not sure I understand. I’m speaking specifically about this particular situation you mentioned : what’s the difference in terms of legitimacy between the two kills, if both were made to be sold to feed someone else?
I understand the legal aspect, like endangered species protections, etc, but that’s another topic entirely. Or is it actually not and you actually meant “legality”?
The point would be it was killed for unrelated reasons, and then is made available post-mortem for consumption somehow. And verifiably so!
As for the ethics:
Eating endangered animals is generally agreed to be a dick move.
I feel like that sums it up pretty well. I don’t know OP but I’d bet money that they would agree it’s to be avoided, so that’s the light I answered the question in.
If this is a vegetarian thing, I did make a mention of that in my OP. Dispensing a lecture instead of answering the spirit of the question would have been unhelpful.
