Asking for a friend.
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.
