126
Man fined after 700 frozen and taxidermied animals found on Victorian property
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
126 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
22879 readers
1130 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Roadkill. Dude's hobby (and probably his livelihood) was turning worthless roadkill carcasses into art. He also had 9 lizards that he was keeping properly, and 6 in conditions that didn't meet the "required animal welfare standards".
Doesn't say what "standards" he was deficient in with regard to those six out of 15, but based on the rest of this article, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that the particular standards he broke for those lizards are some technical infringement rather than actual abuse. Nobody takes care of 2/3 of their animals properly and acts neglectfully toward the remainder.
From this article, it seems the proper "punishment" would have been to assist him in filling out the paperwork for his taxidermy license. He obviously knows the job.
Where does it mention roadkill? I honestly can't find any reference.
The article is condemnatory, but lacks any claim that the animals were killed unlawfully. The absence of such a claim is not proof, of course, but it is conspicuous.
You are correct that nothing in the article explicitly claims "roadkill". Likewise, nothing in the article claims that any of these dead animals were actually harmed.
And yet you claim roadkill as a fact:
You just seem to be pro-taxidermy and twist the article to your liking.
He's offering a deduction.
How else he could come by 78 emus in Australia, you could try to make a better guess.
Yep. I used the term "roadkill" to describe the nature of the death for these animals. Unintentional deaths.
"Roadkill" is being generous to the state, as it at least implies human involvement in their deaths, when the article makes no mention of anyone - let alone the defendant - causing the deaths of these animals.
I am, indeed, pro-taxidermy. It is much better to look at wild animals from museums than zoos or wildlife parks.
Same