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.

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.