Sask Bible camp counsellor facing heat for roasting squirrel in front of kids

I really think this counselor acted out of line and was certainly no role model for children. After all, one would hope that in an outdoor experience, children would hope to learn respect for nature and living things instead of mindless destruction.

This counselor's actions were seriously misguided at best, dangerous at worst. After all around here many small animals carry the plague. Just a few months ago one of the monkeys at the zoo died from eating an infected squirrel. (Here's a link to the story: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5952320)

Also, as someone who grew up living in the country, I can tell you with absolute certainly that 1) I would never eat road kill, and 2) this incident would have seriously disturbed me.

that is nasty!

Nice lesson for Bible Camp. The counsellor is a moron. Also....the animal could have diseases or parasites. Good for the kids, they are smarter than the staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataholic

Gross. Tactless, and to think, this is 'bible' camp.

This wasn't some survival of the fittest on a remote island, learning life sustaining skills. It was BIBLE camp.

It is counselors like this that make me wonder WHY they are around children.

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.

If I had been on a camp and the team leader had, in my eyes, publically abused a wild creature and then attempted to pass it off as survival skills, well, I know where I'd be shoving my marshmallow roasting stick. Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessika

My uncle is a hunter, and he'll do that too. What's more traumatizing to someone -- seeing a dead deer decomposing on the side of the road, or his death to not be in vain and be eaten? I don't see anything wrong with something like that, my uncle has picked up deer that he's seen someone hit (by accident, of course) and brought it home to eat.

I by no means live out in the country, but I guess I was just exposed to that type of stuff when I was younger. I would rather any animal's death not be in vain than just lay there and rot (in this squirrel's case though, the counselor definitely SHOULD NOT have thrown anything at it). But that's just me.

---

So...If I died should I be eaten so that I wouldn't have died in vain? I don't see why people think that if an animal dies and is not eaten that animal dies in vain. Why not just pull the animal in the woods and tell it you're sorry? I've been raised around hunters since I was 5 but I find it disgusting and I find this very wrong. He was cruel by throwing that stick at it. And then roasting it in front of the children? Did he fully kill it first or did he roast it alive? I think a squirell could have survived with only a hurt paw. To hurt an animal in front of children is just teaching them that it is ok.

If I had to kill something in order to live...I would die. That just seems like murder to me.

Sparks, this is almost my thoughts exactly even after reading what went on.

Instead of "perhaps" though, I say he plain simply should Not have been throwing sticks so forcefully that it injured the critter... he could have damaged a kid and it's cruelty. I don't care if the squirrels are a nuisance.

However I do think it is a good lesson that you shouldn't a) let an animal suffer and b) be wasteful. ...no matter what age the children are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparks19

I don't see what the big hullabaloo is about.

Perhaps he shouldn't have been throwing sticks but putting an injured animal out of it's misery and then not putting it to waste can be a good lesson. Not to mention that squirrel can be a good meal in a survival situation. I think it would be far worse if he were to just let the animal suffer in front of the children. Instead I think it was turned into a good lesson on how to use what nature provides you and NOT to waste.

---

Why is it that humans are so unprepared to be a part of the life circle? So what if we're attacked and eaten by say... a bear. So be it. I'd call that an honorable death. (Not like I'm going to go out looking to die that way. Neither does the deer that gets hunted down by the mountain lion.) There is NOTHING wrong with dieing as food for something else. It is just the way things work. If I'm going to be a predator I better darn well be at peace with the thought of something else bigger and hungrier out there ready to eat me for its meal... and I am. (I also have healthy self-preservation instincts.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumbirdy

So...If I died should I be eaten so that I wouldn't have died in vain? I don't see why people think that if an animal dies and is not eaten that animal dies in vain.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumbirdy

So...If I died should I be eaten so that I wouldn't have died in vain? I don't see why people think that if an animal dies and is not eaten that animal dies in vain. Why not just pull the animal in the woods and tell it you're sorry? I've been raised around hunters since I was 5 but I find it disgusting and I find this very wrong. He was cruel by throwing that stick at it. And then roasting it in front of the children? Did he fully kill it first or did he roast it alive? I think a squirell could have survived with only a hurt paw. To hurt an animal in front of children is just teaching them that it is ok.

If I had to kill something in order to live...I would die. That just seems like murder to me.

---

It's the "waste not, want not" philosophy, I suppose. I'm not arguing that what this camp counselor did was wrong by throwing the stick to injure and then kill the squirrel, I'm simply stating that I don't think that people who do eat animals that die from stuff like this is wrong.

And just a completely random question - are you a vegetarian? If you don't want to answer publically, I just have some confusion on what you'd said... if you wish please PM me and I'll ask you via PM instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessika

It's the "waste not, want not" philosophy, I suppose. I'm not arguing that what this camp counselor did was wrong by throwing the stick to injure and then kill the squirrel, I'm simply stating that I don't think that people who do eat animals that die from stuff like this is wrong.

And just a completely random question - are you a vegetarian? If you don't want to answer publically, I just have some confusion on what you'd said... if you wish please PM me and I'll ask you via PM instead.

---

Yes I am a vegetarian. Which is probably why this stuff bothers me so much. Sorry for sounding so cross...I was having a bad day (I know that's really no excuse)
I understand your point but still go with mine.

I'm a farm girl - happily so - but we didn't eat weird stuff. My parents think I eat weird stuff now, crab legs and sushi.
I'm more interested in the fact that Catty always digs for such controversial topics on the internet as to guage how many responses she will get?

It is odd to me that they are just now coming up with a rule that will protect the squirrels from abuse. :( You'd think it would not only already be a written rule, but an unspoken one as well.

God forbid any of us gets stuck in the woods and has to forage for a bite to eat.

Religous camp counselors aren't my pick to teach me how to survive in the wild....

First of all, who the eff is throwing sticks at a squirrel?

That's the moron to take to task.

The misguided counselors decide to be Bear Grylls/Les Stroud and kill and grill the poor animal.


Then the wussie campers decide to complain.

All these little AHs have no problem ordering the Mcnuggets or the Buffalo Wings.

Like, where does your Spencer steak, chicken nuggets or Quarter Pounders come from?

--------

When I was a kid I saw a pig shot in the head, skinned and made into chops, bacon and everything else.

It made me a little more aware of where my pork comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sumbirdy

So...If I died should I be eaten so that I wouldn't have died in vain? I don't see why people think that if an animal dies and is not eaten that animal dies in vain. Why not just pull the animal in the woods and tell it you're sorry? I've been raised around hunters since I was 5 but I find it disgusting and I find this very wrong. He was cruel by throwing that stick at it. And then roasting it in front of the children? Did he fully kill it first or did he roast it alive? I think a squirell could have survived with only a hurt paw. To hurt an animal in front of children is just teaching them that it is ok.

If I had to kill something in order to live...I would die. That just seems like murder to me.

---

I am in agreement with you on this.

I don't like the phrase 'it didn't die in vain'. How do you define such a phrase, is it not more of a presumption? To me, dying in vain is suffering a death premature to the one that would be reached naturally. So, falling off a cliff is dying in vain. Taking an overdose is dying in vain. Injured by aerial objects and then roasted and eaten by animals larger than myself is dying in vain. I know that there'll be many who'll now jump at the chance to try and explain the dictionary version of 'dying in vain', but I couldn't care less. That's just how I perceive it to be.

Just because it was eaten after it was brought down makes no difference. I just don't get how using the corpse seems to mask the KILLING.

I know, as I've been dictated to many times before, that the predator/prey cycle happens all the time in the wild and prey animals must fall victim to predators for the benefit of both species. But the last part is exactly my point, for the benefit of both species. A lioness will hunt and bring down a weak zebra, thus continuing her species and strenghtening that of the zebra. A human on the other hand, will be more attracted to shoot a big, strong stallion to show off his skills, and will shoot at it from afar giving it virtually no chance of survival. At least when a predator gives chase, there is some chance that it could get away. Chances are he'd have a go at shooting the lioness as well.

Even those that do shoot for food have drastic impacts on populations of creatures. The human population is exploding and we're taking more and more land from the animals. Then we throw up our arms and say, "There's a huge amount of deer all crammed up in a little wood! Some are coming into our towns! I know, lets go and shoot them all so the population doesn't rise too much! And if we eat them, the animal lovers have nothing on us!"

Sorry this has gone on a bit (believe me, I could go on a lot further, but that would take me into the depths of my thoughts on meat and slaughter, to which I am not keen to go publically), but I had to express my opinion that hunting wild animals is a primitive action, and I hope that as the world modernises, we'll think more about how both the animals and we can live alongside each other, and hunting will be squeezed out.

I agree with Richard's post, unless all the kids at that camp were vegetarian, then they are being contradictory and selective about what they eat. I have to admit that only a vegetarian/vegan could complain against such a matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Z

I am in agreement with you on this.

I don't like the phrase 'it didn't die in vain'. How do you define such a phrase, is it not more of a presumption? To me, dying in vain is suffering a death premature to the one that would be reached naturally. So, falling off a cliff is dying in vain. Taking an overdose is dying in vain. Injured by aerial objects and then roasted and eaten by animals larger than myself is dying in vain. I know that there'll be many who'll now jump at the chance to try and explain the dictionary version of 'dying in vain', but I couldn't care less. That's just how I perceive it to be.

Just because it was eaten after it was brought down makes no difference. I just don't get how using the corpse seems to mask the KILLING.

---

I agree with you and Sumbirdy as well. I think it is the height of egocentrism to assume that a creature died in vain simply because it wasn't eaten by a human. As if the ultimate goal of a creature's life is to be consumed by a talking biped. :rolleyes:

Actually, I feel the squirrel would have been much less "wasted" had it been left in the forest for the many, many more deserving and no doubt hungrier creatures that live there. I guess some people just can't get over the medieval belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, and by jove, so are humans.

I don't have a problem with eating most kinds of meat - but I myself will stick to pork, chicken, beef, lamb, deer, fish/seafood, or beefalo(b/c actually that's pretty good) even bison.


This kind of reminds me of my sister's mother in law who is a vegetarian but eats hot dogs and bologna. She won't let you fix her garden burger on the grill if hamburger is being grilled at the same time but eating the lips and buttholes apparently doesn't bother her.
She'd probably pass out at the thought of eating a squirrel. (don't get me wrong - Love her to death - she's a wonderful lady but her ideals are a bit wacky)
Whereas myself - if you gave me a huge salad with everything my heart desired on a salad vs a squirrel - I'd pick the salad.!! :eek:
But I wouldn't eat rattlesnake, alligator, ostrich either. I've never had goat so I can't comment on that - but I LOVE lamb....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pembroke_Corgi

I guess some people just can't get over the medieval belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, and by jove, so are humans.

---

You are wrong.

Los Angeles is the center of the universe and Lindsay Lohan is the Queen.