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

[caseysmom]

As I said before, I would like to know a lot more about the story, i.e., what were the ages of the children and were they children who had been in a camping environment before? A teenager would, I am sure, have not batted an eye. Even younger children might not have been traumatized if they have grown up in a rural area and been exposed to a lot of hunting. I have friends with young children and they are used to hunting (and eating) what they hunt. I was not raised that way so it might have bothered me more than kids like that. More info is definitely needed.

I have two teenagers and let me assure you they would have batted an eye.

[Pam]

I have two teenagers and let me assure you they would have batted an eye.

Probably batting an eye was not the best choice of words. I do believe it is a regional thing and also there would be different reactions between boys and girls and at different ages. Kids brought up in that environment would probably not have had the same response as your children (or mine). Also age does matter. If my son had been there, as a teenager, he would have probably thought it was interesting, maybe even cool. My daughter, on the other hand, would have screamed EWWW!

Wom, you will never get me to eat possum!! LOL! I used to cringe when Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies used to make it in their mansion when they moved to Californey!

[caseysmom]

Yes I am sure it is regional, kids raised around farming etc would definetely have a different outlook. My kids can hardly stand to eat any kind of meat let alone seeing a fluffy cute squirell cooked.

[Alysser]

I was/and am being raised in a residential area. My town is certainly by no means a HUGE city, we're more country but my neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding me are all city like. We have normal shopping centers, etc. Anyway, I can tell you most people I know would have been digusted, me included. Once me, my dad, and my brother were in a car and my brother was driving. A deer hit the car and it died. Before we called the police some guy in an old beat-up Ford pick-up truck asked if my brother wanted the deer. He took it home and probably ate it. I was absolutely digusted. That is not something people around here do, or anyone I know of. That was not how we were raised so it's just odd to us.

I remember in bible camp once a kid picked up a frog, and killed it or hurt it at least. Someone told on him, and the consouller went beserk. She stated "These are god creatures and you're supposed to respect them!" the kid was crying histerically. Anyway, my bible camp was the complete opposite of this one. It's just weird to me.

[Jessika]

I was/and am being raised in a residential area. My town is certainly by no means a HUGE city, we're more country but my neighborhood and neighborhoods surrounding me are all city like. We have normal shopping centers, etc. Anyway, I can tell you most people I know would have been digusted, me included. Once me, my dad, and my brother were in a car and my brother was driving. A deer hit the car and it died. Before we called the police some guy in an old beat-up Ford pick-up truck asked if my brother wanted the deer. He took it home and probably ate it. I was absolutely digusted. That is not something people around here do, or anyone I know of. That was not how we were raised so it's just odd to us.

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.

[Hellow]

The way we are around here is that theres nothing wrong with eating squirrel, deer, fish, pratically everything besides pets and humans. So i dont see anything wrong with rosting squirrel.

[sumbirdy]

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.

[Jessika]

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.

[Miss Z]

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.