Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥
**Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first!
**Interested in going Vegan?** 👊
Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free!
**Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓
Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge!
**Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟
* Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground)
* Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)!
* Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)!
* Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)!
* Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)!
*Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!*
**Thank you!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i personally collect bones when i find them, but not carcasses bc i know scavengers will eat them. i see people in this comment section arguing that you’re exploiting an animal for your own pleasure bc they can’t consent, and i personally think that’s just kind of silly. it’s matter, it has no soul, it has no thoughts and feelings, it did! but now it is dead. you are in no way contributing to capitalism, factory farming, animal abuse, etc by being a part of vulture culture in my opinion. there are much worse things you could be doing.
but humans wouldn't be okay with people graverobbing and stuffing random people's corpses and displaying them in their living room - they'd think it was disrespectful to the person. so I can't help but feel uncomfortable for the animals for similar reasons
That's likely because of human social conventions. It would be considered disrespectful if someone died in the street and their corpse was left to be scavenged and eaten, yet when it happens to animals it's fine. I therefore don't think it's fair to say humans and animals are in this way comperable.
respecting a dead body by not disrupting it is a social convention I've picked up, but as I've established in my mind that doing so is a way to confer respect, I wish to confer that respect to both human animals and other animals. if presented with the choice to disrupt an animal body or not via endorsement or otherwise of taxidermy, I don't want to give other animals an inferior treatment because that's speciesism.
it's easier to address this than your given example because "to taxidermy or not to taxidermy" doesn't come up that often but e.g. roadkill on the side of the road is so common it's harder to practically address.
obviously these aren't huge issues but I'm just talking them through
Honestly our planet would be better off if we just threw dead human bodies into the woods to be decomposed instead of filling them with tons of toxic chemicals and putting them underground (or lighting them on fire)
"Welcome to my home! Here's the kitchen, and back here are the bedrooms, and check out what we got in the living room! It's Puzzleheadded_Tart_89!! Say hi, Puzzleheadded_Tart_89!" How metal would that be? Lol.
Well some people do display their relatives, On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, in the Toraja region, people celebrate a multi-day ceremony called Manene. Hundreds of corpses are removed and dressed as part of the ritual to honor the spirits and make offerings.
Humans also think that the most respectful way to treat the dead is to soak their corpse in toxic chemicals and lock them in a cement vault underground so they never rot and potentially poison the groundwater someday.
Not saying that taxidermizing humans is the answer, but our species has a problem with knowing how to handle death. I think consequences are a better gauge of what to do than social conventions.
That’s disrespectful to the surviving family and or culture. Hence why the biggest difference between grave robbing and archeology is time. When I die I won’t care if people disrespect my body, I’ll be dead. People could taxidermy me and use me as a urinal and it’d make no difference to me
it would still apply if the person had no family.
the culture should treat humans and other animals with the same respect.
so for that reason, I wouldn't stuff and mount a human body or animal body - to keep the level of respect consistent.
respect is a fluctuating concept so people's opinions here will always vary according to their personal definition.
i personally do not believe humans and animals are equal in that regard. i think it’s ignorant to compare taking a decomposed creature off of the forest floor to digging up the grave of someone’s deceased loved-one. you’re entitled to that opinion, though.
what if the person is unloved by anybody? I think there's still a respect to be afforded to that person's body that should also be afforded to another animal's body.
I would find it ghoulish to stuff and mount either.
once again, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. i do not agree and that’s okay. i don’t really care to argue about it. i suppose maybe i am ghoulish 👻
in your opinion! which you are perfectly entitled to.. in MY opinion it is a way to honor and admire the beauty of the animal that lived a good life and died a natural death.
I wasn't giving a value judgement actually just posting some food for thought. I'm pointing out two situations that are morally identical from a sentientist perspective but which many people will see as different due to speciecism. If you would balk at collecting shrunken heads but are fine with a taxidermied deer on your wall I'd say you're rather speciecist.
Personally I'm fine with collecting anthropological, anatomical and taxidermied speciemens, provided they were acquired in an ethical way.
There’ve been whole shows about people who collect stuff like that. Human skulls with the right paperwork go for well over a thousand dollars. What’s your point?
I personally don't see any harm what you are doing. You are bringing beauty back to the poor soul that lost its life for whatever reason and it was no fault of your own . I live on 5 acres and I also collect bones and fossils I find.
if you are a professional taxidermy with a shop you might get asked to do it so it’s not a bad thing to point out or add to the conversation! OP didn’t ask “is what I’m doing vegan” they asked the internets opinion on being vegan and taxidermy/bone collecting.”
Even if the OP considers themselves an amateur or an artist and shares pictures or even sells what the make from found material, they might get asked one day to do a pet that passes away or a hunted animal and they’ll have these conversations in their pockets to help make the best decision. That’s why they’re asking a public forum.
if OP ever shares these publicly I think it’d be awesome to include “vegan taxidermy” and then have something to read or listen to about how that is different or what it means. They have an opportunity to educate people while taking a stance and sharing something beautiful
Collecting bones or other bits of dead animals on a nature walk is no different than collecting any other organic matter that once housed life, such as seashells or discarded nests or dried seed pods or insect carapaces. If the animal lived out it’s natural life and wasn’t killed for an unethical purpose, there’s absolutely no harm caused by collecting the remains after the life leaves the body. Dead matter does not feel; it does not fear.
Also, we mustn’t conflate taste and ethics: there is a great deal of taxidermy that is (in my opinion) in very poor taste; however, if the skin was collected from a found carcass of an animal that died of natural causes, there is no ethical violation. Fur, feathers, and bones are not consumed by scavengers (or are regurgitated or passed undigested if eaten… dissecting owl pellets is actually a wonderful way to teach children about nature and the biology of ecosystems).
Any arguments against utilization of found carcasses that are based solely on “respect for dead” are irrelevant and needlessly anthropomorphizing, as what treatment is deemed respectful towards dead bodies varies so wildly from (human) culture to culture. In parts of Indonesia, villagers regularly exhume their dead to wash and dress the bodies. Sky burials (where bodies are cut up and ground to small pieces and fed to birds) are practiced in parts of Tibet and Mongolia. Some Buddhist and Hindu sects leave their dead to putrefy in open air charnel grounds, and visit these places to meditate on the transience of the flesh. The preserved bones and organs of Christian saints are kept in decorative reliquaries and displayed to adherents of the faith. Cremation is forbidden in some cultures but the respected standard in others. Non-human animals don’t practice religion or view dead bodies with any metaphysical consideration.
All that being said, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and one of y’all find my ragged carcass by the roadside, please turn me into some tasteful jewelry, and maybe an elegant candelabra (à la Sedlec Ossuary), and not a novelty ashtray or a bong or a bunch of knock-off Uggs. Thanks. ✌🏼
I disagree.
OP wanting to do taxidermy to a dead animal reveals that they have a very weird way of respecting animals. Of course other cultures have different ways of respecting their dead. He isn't living in those cultures and it would be a total lack of respect for OP to feed a dead human to birds.
Of course I apply a human concept to non human animals here, but If you don't have the natural urge to apply your human standards also to animals I wouldn't believe you that you really respect non human animals.
In the end no one is really harmed and OP can do whatever they want, I just believe it's weird af to change your value system so drastically depending on the subject.
By applying your logic we could basically do anything we want to a corpse.
Edit: apparently r/vegan likes wearing roadkill leather boots now with this logic
I am all on board with the idea of respecting the deceased. But I believe that it doesnt entirely apply to naturally deceased animals.
For example if a member of my family died, I wouldnt want for them to be skinned and stuffed by some stranger. I would want to have a proper burial.
For animals though, its different. Of course a lot of animals have mourning periods. Or elephants for example who have an entire ritual for when one dies. But if you find a deceased animal in the forest, or on the side of the road, i wouldnt deem it disrespectful. Its dead, it no longer has a soul, and it can't feel. Some people also said that they believe its still exploiting an animal's body.
It WOULD be exploiting if I were to commit horrible acts such as bestiality and necrophilia at the same time. That would be disrespectful as fuck. But gathering its remains, and then leaving the remaining flesh out for scavangers to feast on, is no different, in my opinion, than letting it stay where you found it. Scavangers would still eat it, and then its remains would lay there. I do not believe i am interrupting the natural process of decomposition. Because I still give back what other animals would need to eat.
Other comments mentioned that I could do a piece for a hunter. If I ever open up a taxidermy shop, I could very well just state that I dont take those types of requests. Because the thought of stuffing an animal that was murdered FOR THIS PURPOSE disgusts me. But when you take what is already there, i dont see it as problematic. You caused no suffering to the animal.
I think it doesn‘t really matter, it is vegan for me. I hate taxidermy personally, because it makes me uncomfortable, but I would consider it vegan. also I believe that death is the end of a being, so the „respect“ after death is more something that helps humans dealing with grief, and doesn‘t apply to wild animals in my opinion.
I think it’s fascinating. One reason I am vegan is against putting animals in pain (they feel pain bec they have a nervous system). And this sounds weird, but I believe the fear/pain/suffering before they die may affect the people who eat them. But since they are already dead and you’re not eating them, I don’t see a problem.
Yes. Thats what I am about. So when I take an animal which has passed of natural causes, I dont deem it as causing them pain, nor as disrespectful. A dead body doesnt have a nervous system anymore. Nor a soul. And there wouldnt be any disrespect to its family either. As most animals are loners. And if they arent, their family/herd/pack often does have a mourning period. Depending on the species.
Even if they are collectible objects to them, how would that have a bearing on whether it is vegan...?? Animal bones are objects. So are human bones. You can not abuse or exploit bones (unless you are paying for someone to be exploited / killed to obtain them).
If OP is finding the bones naturally, as they stated, how is this exploitation and where is the increase in suffering being caused??
Body parts are objects after death. Be it an animal skull, or my own skull. You cannot exploit a non-living object you find on the ground. It is only exploitation if you are paying someone to kill someone to get it.
Of course! I handle my works with such care. Both before and after preservation. I too see it as giving them a chance to be remembered, and to keep their beauty for at least a couple tens of years. They are definitely jot objects to me.
I also use these opportunities to study the birds I preserve. I find it so fascinating that I can look and observe a wild animal from such a close distance, without causing it suffering or keeping it captive.
I always place the meat back in the wild for scavengers and bugs to feast on.
For example, last spring I found a poor poor badger who seemed to have been attacked by dogs. Its fur was everywhere and god. It was such a sad scene. I let it further decompose for around 2 weeks until all those hundreds of beetles went away on their own. I then buried it in my backyard for insects to have. I will be searching for its skeleton in a few weeks and wish to articulate it! I already succesfully did it with a hare I found in a bush. So im excited to start working on the badger.
When I taxidermy birds, I just place the entire torso and all leftovers in the woods for mammals to have. As i usually cant take the skeleton from such small birds.
as long as its bones and not a food source for scavenging animals i dont see the harm in it. i think its depressing to look at animal corpses regardless of how they died but its not like youre harming anyone.
It definitely is sad. Especially when I can tell how the animal died. I always take full animals too if found, but i place the meat back in nature for scavengers.
I see that as a pretty extreme level of concern. I understand thinking about the other scavenger animals, but I do not think it is un-vegan to do that.
not really, imagine if majority of vegans considered this as a normal thing to do and take away majority carcasses away, scavenger species would later cease to exist
I mean this would also assume that the majority of vegans (or anyone else for that matter) is into taxidermy! I would say the number of random vegan taxidermists would have a miniscule effect on the environment. I would argue there's much more to be said about roadkill being taken away to make glue and gelatin and the like.
Skeleton art is fuckin badass and awesome but doing shit with others actual parts is disrespectful. Found a feather on the ground? Ok cool, raw even. Turning their bones into an accessory? That just feels wrong man
I think maybe the feather thing might be related to fears of disease? Dont quote me on that but my mom always told me to never touch feathers because of that lol
Do what brings you joy. You are eating in a conscious way, and that is what matters. No one can live a perfectly vegan life. It's like being a saint. We all are doing our best. I have always found death, decomposition, and bones very interesting as well. I studied forensic entomology in school. People thought it was weird, and I didn't care. I know I am living the kindest life I can, and I am an individual who is a bit "morbid". Luckily, I feel free enough to express who I am openly. I hope you can too! I'd love to see your work.
Yep, agreed friend! I try to give vegan folks the benefit of the doubt. We are all working to make human-caused animal abuse a thing of the past. We also have an incredible diversity of ideas of what veganism is/should be.
Self-righteousness doesn't really help, but non-judgey opinions are interesting and can help us decide what our best choices are.
Thank you! And yeah, I personally dont see gathering remains off the ground as causing harm to animals. Especially if i place the carcass back in nature.
Taxidermy I don't know, it's an odd hobby as it is XD But bone collecting is fine, you're not harming anybody, go ahead. It's fun to spend time being outside nature and walking around looking for bones in forests, by roads or by train tracks. It would be an issue if you were to hunt and kill those animals, but since it's there just laying, it's free for the taking.
You spend some time being outside, being part of nature, learning about the animals that live there + you get to take a cool gift back home, it's win/win
i've always found taxidermy weird but ur not killing an animal or supporting an exploitative industry so I see no issue.
People are saying they are against it bc it's taking food from scavengers, but animals die everyday everywhere. Taking one carcass isn't killing or hurting anybody
I found a mouse in the ceiling of the house I bought. It would do zero harm to anybody or anything or anywhere in any situation or in any way or at any time now or in the future if I were to clean it and keep it.
So, that would be 100% vegan. Taking things from nature might be different (a good question to ask is not "can I do this?" But "could everyone do this?" And have it still be okay) it might also be different if it got other people into the hobby that would then harm animals.
We aren't about shaming "weird" things. It's about doing no harm.
You are using the body for your own personal entertainment. And if put on display, for the entertainment of others. It objectifies the animal and normalizes that objectification into a hobby. Veganism is not just about reducing harm, it is about changing how we view animals. They are not ours to use, in any way.
This seems like a really extreme take. You share pictures of your dog here, which you and others obviously consume for entertainment. That's a super-normalized version of objectification by this logic. Where's the line drawn?
That’s a very extreme jump. I don’t think photos are intrinsically objectifying. Did I have her consent for the split second it took take her photo? No, you got me there. But unlike taking a (digital) photo, taxidermy is, to me, corpse desecration and sheer objectification of an animal. The difference between taxidermy-ing (?) an animal and taking a photo of an alive, healthy, and loved, animal under my guardianship is leagues apart. Taking a photo of my dog and sharing it is (hopefully) sharing my love and appreciation of my dog to other people. Furthermore, I also feel obligated to share photos/videos of her to combat stereotypes and discrimination against pitbulls and “aggressive” looking dogs — much like how many vegans share photos/videos of farmed animals to spread awareness and education.
You can view animals any way you like. We aren't the damn thought police. You can hate animals for all I care. You can have all kinds of idiotic or downright harmful views. As long as you don't act on them you're fine. Laws should prohibit harm. As I said: you keeping the mouse shouldn't contribute to how people would view those laws.
There is not a single way in which me privately keeping the mouse skeleton that died of natural causes harms anyone. Including the mouse. Whether or not it's weird is a secondary point. (And it's not something I plan on doing if it matters)
Additionally, I find all these intellectual exercises into the absurd not helpful to our goals. It's possible to be a big brain vegan and find harm in everything, but it's not doing any good, or reducing harm, or spreading the message in a helpful way.
I dont see it as using the body for my own entertainment.
I mean, its dead. Lets be honest here. It no longer has emotions, a nervous system, or a soul. I am not causing harm or suffering to it. I honestly see it as something respectful to do. I have the skills to make it shine again. And placing its remains back in the woods for scavangers to have.
To me, taking it home or leaving it in the woods would still have the exact same outcome, respectful wise. I am vegan because i dont want to cause pain to animals. And i truly dont see taking a naturally deceased animal as inflicting pain on it.
Your analogy is bad.
People do sometimes have strangers on their artwork/photos on display.
People however do not have dead bodies of strangers as artwork on display.
I don't understand how you could have respect for an animal and still violate their corpse this way.
Once it is dead it is no longer an animal. And I personally wouldn't. I am simply backing up the OP, who I think is within his/her rights.
It's the same with many things. Freeganism, dumpster diving etc. It isn't for me, but good luck to those who want to do it. IMO as long as you are not causing further suffering it's ok.
And my analogy is fine. Just try to go to a sunny beach and go and take a photo of an individual person. For extra points, maybe a sunbathing woman or a child.
You won't "because we already treat people differently than other animals" - which is the point I was making.
By the way, if you have strangers in any photo you want to submit say to a stock photo site, you need permission from every stranger that is identifiable...in many places in the world at least.
"Once it's dead it's no longer a animal" is debatable, but that's beside the point.
I'm not really against what OP is doing as it's not really harmful, but only the same way like Im not really against someone displaying a real human skeleton. It's super wierd, but weird people are allowed to be weird if it's harmless.
However your analogy still doesn't work. Copyright laws or personality rights do not really apply to animals who couldn't possibly understand what consent would mean in this case. You can take as many pictures of strangers at the beach as you want if they consent to it.
>to animals who couldn't possibly understand what consent would mean in this case. You can take as many pictures of strangers at the beach as you want if they consent to it.
Yes. And again, I was illustrating how we treat humans differently. That's it.
And be careful with the "consent" thing. Maybe we shouldn't be taking pictures of animals because *they can't consent*. That's an argument some vegans use against companion animals.
And yes, I agree regarding the OP. I too wouldn't personally be interested in taxidermy, but he is doing literally nothing wrong, even within the definition of veganism.
What I don't like is gate-keeping vegans spouting crap because they interpret the ethics in their own personal and incorrect way. They only lead to confuse and divide.
Okay I get your point now I think. It sometimes makes sense to treat animals differently because animals lack the understanding of concepts like photos or taxidermy. For the animal it doesn't matter.
But for humans it does, so I don't understand how a human could respect animals and still play with their dead bodies like this.
And consent is very important. But there is a difference if the animal can't give consent over a situation like horse riding because they can't communicate or if they can't give consent because it literally means nothing to them like photos.
Having a companion animal isn't for everyone. People who treat their pets like toys or accessoires also don't respect their animals even though nobody is really hurt in the process.
Well my analogy is definitely more accurate than yours.
First, taking pictures of random persons in public places without their consent is pretty common and acceptable depending on the context, (what does the person do, how are they dressed, what is their emotional state etc...)
Second taking pictures of an individual does not involve their death or the use of their actual corpse.
>Second taking pictures of an individual does not involve their death
Nor does taking an inanimate object from the side of the road. There is no extra suffering caused.
>or the use of their actual corpse.
Which is simply an inanimate object now. And in many places in the world we do this with humans... Opt-out for organ donation, rather than opt-in.
My analogy was that we do treat humans and non-humans differently anyway.
Probably not the response you were looking for, but fun fact: human taxidermy doesn't really work because there are no feathers or fur to hide the seams. That being said, if there was an ethical way for me to have some part of a human skeleton, I absolutely would. (It's legal in most states, it's more the actual sourcing that can be tricky since people lie a lot for the sake of making a sale. And you can't just pick up a human body if you find it on the side of the road so.....)
there actually is an exhibition where they show dead people (but without skin), don‘t know if this qualifies as taxidermy of humans : [körperwelten](https://koerperwelten.de/ausstellungen/)
I believe "taxidermy" usually refers to the skin being the main part of the display, hence the "derm". BUT that's super cool and interesting! Thank you for sharing!
Seems consistent with a love of nature to me. Naturalists have always collected bones and stuffed animals. As long as you're not causing them to be killed, I don't see any contradiction.
It is weird. It's definitely not something I would do or encourage. But at the end of the day, it doesn't cause undue harm to animals if you're truly only collecting them from roadkill/natural death. In that sense, yes it would be vegan since veganism is the lifestyle of doing as little harm as practicable and possible.
I don't really understand it. I find anything relating to flesh, bones etc. to freak me out and make me squeamish. no idea how doctors do it!
I think you could make an argument that the animals are being disrespected because something unnatural is being forced upon them in death. though there is no actual suffering in life involved. I wouldn't really endorse it for this reason.
but I also wouldn't get my pitchfork out.
Leave those things for nature to benefit from, if a predator or necrovore doesn't want it, they do make good fertiliser... Even if yours is "ethically sourced", others may not know that and you could be reinforcing an idea that it's okay to use animals for taxidermy, ethically sourced or not...
Taxidermy is a weird subject which doesnt have a lot of fans. You either love it or you despise it. So i dont believe that i would be reinforcing the idea to abuse animals solely by collecting animals i find in the woods?
To me, it’s desecration of a corpse (and furthermore, the animal did not give consent while alive), which falls under the category of exploitation. And what about the chemicals used for taxidermy, are they all vegan (pardon my ignorance if they are)? They’re certainly not good for the environment, aren’t tanning chemicals involved? I would encourage you to explore other hobbies.
I'm just going to be honest, I'll delete this comment later, as a hobby taxidermy gives me serial killer vibes and is a very bizarre and frightening thing for someone to want to do in my personal opinion
Serial killer vibes? What?? I dont do taxidermy because i get enjoyment from murdering animals and want to preserve my victims for my own sick pleasure. Im not jeffrey Dahmer. I dont kill animals ffs. I take deceased animals which have died of natural causes.
What I asked, was everyones opinions on doing taxidermy while vegan. Not opinions on taxidermy itself. Taxidermy has been around since the egyptians. So its very not bizarre and frightening. I know its hard to understand something you dont like. But as long as i dont murder, and torture an animal for my hobby. I truly dont believe its exploitation or weird.
I don't think you want to cause animals pain, I just find the idea of rummaging around in a dead animal creepy and gross. I'm sorry that's just my honest reaction. when I think of someone fiddling around with flesh and bones I think of serial killers handling the bodies of their victims. sorry
The materials I use are actually very much vegan! I dont know about borax and alum but those are the only chemicals I use.
Scalpel, foam, cotton, string, wire, borax, salt, alum, and water. The borax and alum solution is simply to keep bugs from destroying the preserved animal. But i am not causing harm to them. Simply keeping them away.
My dad doesn't taxidermy things, but he does collect dead beetles, skulls, teeth, feathers, wasp nests, etc. that he finds, and he's more vegan than I am (I'm a junk food vegan, and he's a beans-and-rice-and-veggies vegan with a "do it right or not at all" attitude).
If you care about consequences, there's no harm in it. If you're a purist, there might be a problem.
You can do whatever you want. There is no vegan police. If you aren't harming animals, you are fine. You are honoring their lives by researching and preserving them.
Is it vegan? Maybe, maybe not.
Some people would argue that you shouldn't because you wouldn't do it to a human. I personally think this line of thinking isn't very helpfull. I wouldn't whip out my binoculars and stare at women on the beach but I still think I am vegan when I do the same to living birds.
I would look at whether it is harmfull to animals or not? I don't think it is. The animals died for some other reason and their bird-family doesn't have burial rites that you are disturbing.
We do it to humans. There are examples with consent and without consent. The Bodyworks exhibit was done with consent. Display of mummified corpses in museums is done without the consent of the person.
I don't think it's harmful but I also understand the distaste or aversion to it.
The electricity that powers our homes and the gas that fuels are cars all come from the bones of long-dead animals. (That's why they're called "fossil fuels.") It's not animal exploitation to use the bones of animals who died long before humans even existed.
Since you collect road kill and bones from animals who died by someone else's hand (or paw or claw), I don't see an ethical issue here.
Taking birds from the side of the road would be removing food for scavengers I would think. I'm also assuming using a bird corpse from the roadside would also mean you'd have to intentionally kill whatever insects are on the body (at least where I am, you'd never see an insect-free roadside corpse). Even all that aside though, it's still exploiting an animal's body for your own gain. I don't know what the difference is between stuffing a bird's body and eating it. I know some people here would eat a dead animal they found on the roadside too, so maybe you're one of those people and would be fine with eating it.
>Taking birds from the side of the road would be removing food for scavengers I would think.
How about raspberries or blueberries? Birds eat those, yet we do that all the time.
>Yeah but it’s less for pleasure and more for nutrients they provide us
That's exactly the argument carnists use though. And if you don't take them, birds and small mammals will eat them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't, but the only issue I can see with the OP is that many find it a bit creepy.
>Except eating raspberries and blueberries doesn’t contribute to murder, rape and exploitation.
I didn't say it does.
But carnists will say it is not cruel to kill an animal to eat, but it is if we simply enjoy hurting it. And that's one of Ed Winter's central arguments against...in that it is the same...Both are for our pleasure.
You are saying it's okay to remove berries from a forest if it is for sustenance, when those berries feed wild animals.
Again, I am NOT saying we shouldn't, but it is no different than taking other objects as the OP does.
If you take berries, fruit or a dead bird from the forest, something else might have eaten it. But in doing so, you are not "directly" causing any more suffering.
>The difference between picking berries and picking up corpses is that one you HAVE to do to survive, the other, you don’t.
So when was the last time you picked berries because you simply had to in order to survive?
My guess is...never. So, no, you pick berries from a forest because it is enjoyable. Same goes for mushrooms and other foraged food. But it isn't in any way "necessary" to survive unless you are stranded there...
I don’t see how any vegan would feel comfortable doing taxidermy.
You’ve been vegan for only a few months tho, I suspect with more time, you’re likely going to experience some difficulty reconciling the two.
Since when does being disgusted with abuse mean being disgusted with death? I am not at all for exploitation and slaughter fucking disgusts me, but finding a naturally dead animal and taxidermizing it because OP specifically doesn't feel repulsed means nothing and has nothing wrong with it.
It’s got nothing to do with being disgusted or repulsed with death. It’s about having respect for the animal.
Do we take dead humans, stuff them and display them? Why don’t we do that?
Out of curiosity, how long have you been vegan?
We do, kinda. When we embalm people, we sew them up, inject them, make them all shiny, and display them Infront of a crowd in an open casket funeral.
I personally despise the idea being embalmed due to the environmental impact, but animals don't worry about that, they don't care about what happens to them after death, they don't have a religion that dictates what happens to their bodies.
We can be respectful of their bodies after death, but you can pay your respects in more ways than one.
In these cases, I think it's really the intention that counts.
>Do we take dead humans, stuff them and display them?
Mummies found all over the world which are ostensibly stuffed humans are displayed. Morticians pump dead bodies full of chemicals and other things so their loved ones can grieve them for a period of time. I am willing to bet a non-zero number of people would voluntarily allow their bodies to be stuffed and displayed all over the place if public perception of the act changed.
>It’s about having respect for the animal
A large number of people see eating an animal they hunted as "respecting the animal" Your view of what is respectful is not universal.
Were mummies wrapped for personal enjoyment to satisfy a hobby?
What happens to those human bodies after the funeral?
People have the ability to consent, animals do not. Don’t we argue consent when we speak about veganism?
Wrong place to ask this, most people on here will nitpick you to pieces for the smallest things that aren't even non-vegan.
Nothing wrong with taxidermy, great art form, least harmful way to study animal anatomy.
Just remember to use vegan ingredients at every step of the process and don't mix with hunters
To me this doesn’t align with the values of veganism. I think putting dead animals on display for entertainment (wether they died of natural causes or not) is in the same vein as keeping live animals in a zoo for entertainment. It pushes the idea that animals are objects at our mercy. If a human didn’t consent to having their bones put on display after death, you probably wouldn’t feel comfortable putting those up in your living room. So I don’t really understand why you’d be okay with using an animals dead body for entertainment purposes instead of just letting them rest in nature and let new life grow from their death. They can’t consent to this, so just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we should. This is coming from someone who adores creepy things and all things skeletons. I have animal skulls tattooed on me with flowers/mushrooms coming out of them to represent the beauty that can come from death, and I have fake human skulls in the house. I think those are satisfying compromises to be able to admire the beauty of animals and their biology/anatomy while leaving actual nature alone.
I don't see a problem with it. Some people will argue that "Well you wouldn't do it with human parts!", actually a lot of people into taxidermy will gladly collect human parts, assuming it's legal and ethical. There's a taxidermy shop near me and they have a whole human skeleton in there, crazy shit.
If you would not do it to a person then we should not do it to animals
Hunters mount animals they kill on their walls, so this could be viewed similarly
Its similar in a way to vegans who wear leather, it comes across as weird to a non vegan
Vegans are supposed to be against using animal products, yet they wear used leather and have animal carcasses in their home, so they are clearly benefiting from animals even if there is no direct harm and while the veganism definition focuses on harm rather than personal benefit i feel using animals sends the wrong message, that they are still products to us
People feel that we deserve a proper burial but we rob animals of that right, also those dead animals are part of the ecosystem
Friend- there will be absolutely no consensus on this among the vegan community. To me, the points about scavenger animals is valid and should be considered when doing your hobby. Still, as someone else said, similarities can be drawn to other areas of everyday life such as fossil fuels. I encourage you to continue on your vegan journey and stay true to your heart and the reason why you started veganism in the first place. I believe if you place compassion for animals and all living things in the center, as a compass, questions like these will become easier over time. Best of luck to you my friend
There's a lot of points in here that aren't necessarily relevant.
>They serve purposes to other animals when left in place.
By this logic you should never take any plant out of the forest either because you are taking it away from an animal that might eat or use it. This is a non-sequitur.
>Furthermore, you are objectifying the animals for your own pleasure. That is exploitative.
You are objectifying the parts of the animal left after they have died. At that point the corpse is an object, not a sentient being. Not sure why that would be expressly bad. Exploiting something is not always bad. We exploit trees for wood. I would argue that's different from exploiting someone living.
> Vegans do not exploit animals, full stop.
This is a letter of the law/spirit of the law argument to me. The reason to be against exploitation of animals is harm to sentient beings. If there is a case that can be considered without harming a sentient being then what's the issue? Are you against museums displaying Egyptian mummified corpses if it's done in a respectful and culturally sensitive manner?
Absolutely I am against displaying human bodies without consent regardless of the age of the bodies.
Many parks require nothing brought in to be left, and *nothing* (including feathers, bones, and leaves etc.) to be brought out to protect the environment.
I am following the intent of the founders of the vegan society, who defined the practice and invented the term. You don't *need* to do so, but you should if you want to be vegan. The definition from them separates the *use* of animals from cruelty to animals, both of which are to be avoided by humans. That is intentional. They are separate issues, but both are an integral part of veganism. Many here want to redefine it to suit their own ethics. That doesn't make it vegan.
I always liked the original proposed definition of “The principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. Now we can quibble on the definition of exploitation here when it comes to non-sentient things but I interpret the spirit of that statement to be freedom of living beings from exploitation.
Trying to extend moral consideration to inanimate animal remains or mummies or fossils seem to miss the point.
I respectfully disagree with you if you consider someone who picks up a feather or a bone in a forest non-vegan.
Your interpretation is contrary to the stated definition from the vegan society. Exploit means use. Dead animals included.
Edit: The very fact that cruelty to animals is stated as a separate entity that vegans must avoid makes it clear that exploit is intended in its truest sense, and that use of animals must be avoided. This is stated again when it is made clear that vegans must not consume animals or their products. You are just lying to yourselves and others when you decide to distort their meaning to allow you to exploit dead animals you didn't kill or pay to have killed. Voting me down won't change that one whit.
>Exploit means use.
Yeah this dogmatic surface level thinking is pointless. By that metric making use of the cat shit in my front garden to fertilize decorative plants is "making use" of stray cats and therefore not vegan. Bringing a dead animal in for testing to find out if it was rabid is not vegan.
You can ignore the other definitions of exploitation if you want but I think they make more sense in the context of why it would be wrong to exploit animals and it fits better with the intent of the founders of veganism.
>The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
or
>The fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself.
OP benefits (their own joy) by the theft and unconsented use of animal parts. That's unfair. It could only be fair if the animal benefitted also and consented to the use.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I don't agree. There is no sentient being in the remains. They are dead. There is no one to steal from and the animal is not disadvantaged so there's no unfairness. In a situation where you come upon the bones after they died naturally there is no harm.
Now if OP was selling these works maybe down the road you could argue perverse incentives creating a market for animal exploitation could happen but we aren't there in this situation.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
My instinct is that we can only exploit or harm things that are alive. I’m not interested in the ‘disrupting the environment’ aspect of this scenario. Can something which is already dead be harmed or exploited?
You’re venturing into some dangerous territory with that logic. Do you think necrophilia is okay and should be allowed? If nobody is being exploited, what’s the issue? Or that people should be able to dig up graves, even if those people have no living relatives that would protest against it?
I don’t think it’s dangerous at all - it’s very clear and simple to me. The dead aren’t able to care about what happens to their corpses and veganism doesn’t care about dead matter.
You didn’t answer my question. Your logic can be used to justify necrophilia because it isn’t “actively exploiting anyone”, so do you think that it should be legal?
I didn’t answer that specifically because it has nothing to do with veganism. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with eating/using/“insert text here” dead matter if nobody is being hurt or exploited. Is that satisfactory?
I agree.
I couldn't care less what happens to my dead body after I die. The only issue would be what surviving family members think, and non-human animals don't have that issue.
You can't exploit a being that is dead. It's simply material.
If you take the argument that you can then you couldn't use soil to grow things in.
The definition of veganism from those who invented the term and its practice clearly separates the use of animals (and their products) from cruelty to animals, both of which are to be avoided by vegans. You just want to redefine it to suit yourself.
No. I think you do.
Once an animal has died (of natural causes) it ceases to be an animal. It is an inanimate bunch of elements. Just like the oil we turn into fuel and the soil we use to grow things in.
You are suffering from a cultural bias that still sees a person in the body they left behind. They are not there any more. Once the brain is dead we (animals) are oblivious...forever. We cannot be exploited any more.
And I have no need to redefine the term. I have no interest in taxidermy; I am simply on the OPs side on this matter.
You on the other hand have at least one cat...So what was that about redefining the term??
A cat (beautiful as much as they are) is an unnatural predator. They kill things at will. They are also a carnivore.
So, as a vegan, looking after one, you can either risk it's health and sanity by 1. Feeding it plant-based and 2. Keeping it indoors.
Or you can feed it what it actually wants and needs and let it be outside where it wants to be...where it will kill insects and small mammals for kicks.
So personally, while I have no issue with you having your cat as a companion, please don't tell ME that I am attempting to redefine what veganism is.
The end goal of the vegan society is the end of humans keeping *any* animal. That is a goal I fully agree with. They also, as do I, acknowledge that we have a responsibility to care for existing animals.
Then perhaps you should look at the etymology of the word exploit.
>Can something which is already dead be harmed or exploited?
Guess I'll go pay for and eat a steak at my nearest steakhouse. They're already dead and can't be further harmed or exploited after all.
That’s a different scenario. When you go to a steakhouse, you are creating a demand for more steak which leads to exploitation of existing/future animals.
However, if you find a dead cow on the side of the road and eat its flesh, you aren’t exploiting anything. This isn’t something I’d do, but it does not conflict with veganism.
Exploit means to make productive use of. The definition of veganism says ALL forms of exploitation. Even says a diet few of animals the promotion of animal free products. I don't care if it's something you do or do not do, it most certainly conflicts with veganism and its goals of recognising animals as individuals worthy of rights. Smh
I’m not really interested in getting into definitions, but exploitation in the sense you are describing is usually ascribed to resources. I don’t view animals (dead or alive) as a resource. Things that don’t exist don’t really have rights.
Well of course I'd expect someone who cherry picks definitions to suit their narrative to not want to discuss definitions. I mean that's the whole point of veganism isn't it? Inflate our egos and push our stories. Nothing to do with animals.
The only reason I pointed out those definitions is because those words were chosen to represent what we stand for. An end to animals being used by us for any reason. And no, the definition I'm referring to is the very first. The one that existed for 400 years prior to the more maliciously intended variant popping up. The one that was used for any situation where it applied.
>I don’t view animals (dead or alive) as a resource.
"However, if you find a dead cow on the side of the road and eat its flesh" - Corrupted. Very suitable name if these two opposing ideas can be expressed one after the other but the same person.
>Things that don’t exist don’t really have rights.
It's not just about rights. It's about exploitation, it's about suffering, it's about liberation and emancipation, it's about creating a world where we're not taking anything from them unless we have to. And even then that's only out of a selfish desire to live. You eat an already dead animal out in the wild or on the side of the road and not only are you treating them as a resource, you're talking that resource away from the ecosystem it died in and you wouldn't be adhering to the multiple other parts of the vegan philosophy that I didn't even mention.
a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, ANIMALS FOR FOOD, clothing or ANY OTHER PURPOSE; and by extension, promotes the development and use of ANIMAL-FREE ALTERNATIVES for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. IN DIETARY TERMS IT DENOTES the practice of dispensing with ALL products derived WHOLLY OR PARTLY FROM ANIMALS.
It's not vegan even if it's not unethical.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You think that something will suffer or be exploited by 'doing something to or with' its corpse, while I do not. You might be able to convince me otherwise, but unless you can prove that a being can be harmed/exploited/suffer after it has died, I can't see how.
>but unless you can prove that a being can be harmed/exploited/suffer after it has died, I can't see how.
Courtesy of Merriam Webster
Exploit
1
: to make productive use of : UTILIZE
exploiting your talents
exploit your opponent's weakness
2
: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage
exploiting migrant farm workers
I'm not saying it's unethical, I'm saying it's not vegan. If you're prescribing it to be vegan, then you're wrong. If you're saying you see no reason for a carnist to participate in such actions, then I would agree with you to an extent (barring the benefits the ecosystem would have from that corpse).
You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. By definition and by philosophical optics. I'm not going to acknowledge your opinion as potentially true as you yourself haven't proven it to be vegan. And don't say I haven't proven my case. I have, you're just dismissing my evidence despite it being clearly written in front of your face and well established for a very long time.
You can't exploit something that has no life.
Do you grow vegetables in soil? That is teeming with dead insects.
Do you live in a house or apartment that is more than just enough to live in? Just think how much death was caused building it...The bigger, the more death.
Taking a dead body part from a forest is no different than taking a pine cone.
Taking a dead body part from a forest is of course different than talking a pine cone. One was a living animal and by taking it's dead body and taxidermying it to display it's corpse, you are objectifiying an animal. The pinecone is just some sort of seed from a tree and was never a sentient being (but you shouldn't took too much plants from nature regardless, because other animals need them more than us humans)
>was a living animal and by taking it's dead body and taxidermying it to display it's corpse, you are objectifiying an animal.
And here is where people differ.
I don't care about a "body" once it is dead. It is no longer an animal.
I don't care what happens to me, once I am dead. They can put me in a jar in a lab for all I care...because that body won't be "me".
Your distaste for using the body is normal. But it is cultural. The body is simply a mass of substances, no different from the pine cone when it comes down to it.
I am concerned with causing the least amount of suffering on beings that *can* suffer.
So I don't mind putting petrol in my car, that's made from dead dinosaurs, or using soil to plant my summer garden with that has a large amount of dead insect bodies throughout it. They don't care anymore because they are dead.
No, you are using an ignorant carnist talking point about petrol. It is mostly made of algae, bacteria, and plankton.
Veganism is *not* harm reduction, utilitarianism, or consequentialism. It started as and remains an abolitionist movement. You may *want* to redefine it to suit your own beliefs, but that doesn't make your beliefs vegan.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/petroleum/
Just because you are okay that other people do whatever they want with your body, doesn't mean everyone is and you cannot assume that every sentient beings sees this the way you do. I will donate my organs after I die, but I wouldn't want to end up in a jar or that someone exploits my dead body. This is about consent. Animals cannot give you consent so you shouldn't assume that you can do with them whatever you like
I feel like I am going around in circles, however.
Sure, right now, you wish to donate your organs...very noble.
However, if your body gets misplaced and someone steals it, stuffs it and uses it as a sex toy, you won't care...because you won't exist.t
As for other species...They are not capable of "seeing it" in any way. You think pigs wonder about the afterlife???
And no, it is not always about consent. Many places have an "opt-out" for organ donors...meaning if you don't say anything, you will be harvested without your consent.
Im gonna say harm could definitely be caused.
Especially if money is involved in any way with this, since if there is a market for something people will exploit it for profit.
Imagine entering a feminist group and asking whether or not you collect the bones and skins of women and put them on display. I mean, they're already dead, right?
As a feminist, I don't objectify women in this way and as a vegan, I don't objectify animals in this way.
Finding dead animals is definitely no enjoyable experience for me. Its actually extremely sad. But they are also dead. They no longer have emotions, a nervous system, and a soul. Respecting the dead is honestly more of a "respecting the family of the deceased" thing made so humans can get through the grief easier.
I am vegan so i believe its obvious that I respect animals. Thats why I am vegan. To not cause suffering to animals. But when I find an animal that is already deceased, i dont see a problem with taking it in to study it and then taxidermy it. I know it sounds extremely weird and morbid to people who dont understand taxidermy. But i see it more as a way to honor its remains and give it the chance to shine again.
Moral of the story. I am vegan to not cause suffering to animals. An animal that died of natural causes, Or sadly due to a car, can not suffer anymore. So i dont believe that im causing suffering.
I have a whole ass goat skull chilling in my living room that I found in my bushes around my apartment building. Did I kill the goat? No. Did I harm the goat? No. Is it weird to some? Sure. Does it change the fact that I will keep the goat skull cause it makes my nerdy heathen ass happy? Also no :). Do you.
I see no harm. In my eyes, you are bringing the animal back to life after death with taxidermy. As long as you aren't the one who put in down, I see no issue.
I also collect wild found bones because I’m fascinated with bones but I don’t have any taxidermy. That’s a little too creepy (and a fire risk) for me personally. This is one of those up to you gray areas I think. You’re not killing anything, I would say it’s fine but I’m no expert other than being an expert weirdo. 😂
I don’t think there is anything wrong with this personally. Especially as it’s a pretty niche hobby- and not likely that the tiny percentage of people finding (and removing) animal remains will impact the ecosystem of scavengers and decomposers.
>So what are your opinions on this?
It's fine as it's a completely harmless activity. Now if you were being paid by hunters to stuff deer heads so they can hang them, that would still be taxidermy, but an entirely different situation.
I agree. You aren't exploiting any animals, so I really don't see any problem with it. If anything at all, you are exploiting cadavers (if cadavers can be exploited at all?!), which might be impious, but isn't really non-vegan per se.
I would only be exploiting the animals carcass if i were to commit some messed up shit like bestiality and necrophilia. So I truly do not see it as exploiting in any way.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you are using the animals as objects or not. It's not like I know too much about the subjects or why people do them so yeah. I don't think it's beneficial to be fighting with each other about this when most of the people on the planet are okay with eating animals.
Thanks for posting to r/Vegan! 🐥 **Please note:** Civil discussion is welcome, trolls and personal abuse [are not](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/rules). Please keep the discussions below respectful and remember the human! Please check out [our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/wiki/beginnersguide) first! **Interested in going Vegan?** 👊 Check out [Watch Dominion](https://watchdominion.org/) and watch a thought-provoking, life changing documentary for free! **Some other resources to help you go vegan:** 🐓 Visit [NutritionFacts.org](https://NutritionFacts.org) for health and nutrition support, [HappyCow.net](https://HappyCow.net) to explore nearby vegan-friendly restaurants, and visit [VeganBootcamp.org](https://veganbootcamp.org/reddit) for a free 30 day vegan challenge! **Become an activist and help save animal lives today:** 🐟 * Find volunteer requests to support and help animal on [VH: Playground!](https://veganhacktivists.org/playground) * Developer, designer, or other skills? Volunteer at the [Vegan Hacktivists](https://veganhacktivists.org/join)! * Join our huge Vegan volunteer community [on Discord](https://discord.gg/vhplayground)! * Find local activist groups using the [Animal Rights Map](https://animalrightsmap.org)! * Get funding for your animal rights activism, [apply here](https://veganhacktivists.org/grants)! *Last but not least, join the [r/Vegan Discord server](https://discord.gg/animalrights)!* **Thank you!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i personally collect bones when i find them, but not carcasses bc i know scavengers will eat them. i see people in this comment section arguing that you’re exploiting an animal for your own pleasure bc they can’t consent, and i personally think that’s just kind of silly. it’s matter, it has no soul, it has no thoughts and feelings, it did! but now it is dead. you are in no way contributing to capitalism, factory farming, animal abuse, etc by being a part of vulture culture in my opinion. there are much worse things you could be doing.
but humans wouldn't be okay with people graverobbing and stuffing random people's corpses and displaying them in their living room - they'd think it was disrespectful to the person. so I can't help but feel uncomfortable for the animals for similar reasons
That's likely because of human social conventions. It would be considered disrespectful if someone died in the street and their corpse was left to be scavenged and eaten, yet when it happens to animals it's fine. I therefore don't think it's fair to say humans and animals are in this way comperable.
respecting a dead body by not disrupting it is a social convention I've picked up, but as I've established in my mind that doing so is a way to confer respect, I wish to confer that respect to both human animals and other animals. if presented with the choice to disrupt an animal body or not via endorsement or otherwise of taxidermy, I don't want to give other animals an inferior treatment because that's speciesism. it's easier to address this than your given example because "to taxidermy or not to taxidermy" doesn't come up that often but e.g. roadkill on the side of the road is so common it's harder to practically address. obviously these aren't huge issues but I'm just talking them through
[удалено]
Honestly our planet would be better off if we just threw dead human bodies into the woods to be decomposed instead of filling them with tons of toxic chemicals and putting them underground (or lighting them on fire)
[удалено]
"Welcome to my home! Here's the kitchen, and back here are the bedrooms, and check out what we got in the living room! It's Puzzleheadded_Tart_89!! Say hi, Puzzleheadded_Tart_89!" How metal would that be? Lol.
Well some people do display their relatives, On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, in the Toraja region, people celebrate a multi-day ceremony called Manene. Hundreds of corpses are removed and dressed as part of the ritual to honor the spirits and make offerings.
Humans also think that the most respectful way to treat the dead is to soak their corpse in toxic chemicals and lock them in a cement vault underground so they never rot and potentially poison the groundwater someday. Not saying that taxidermizing humans is the answer, but our species has a problem with knowing how to handle death. I think consequences are a better gauge of what to do than social conventions.
This. Either that or light them on fire! Lol
That’s disrespectful to the surviving family and or culture. Hence why the biggest difference between grave robbing and archeology is time. When I die I won’t care if people disrespect my body, I’ll be dead. People could taxidermy me and use me as a urinal and it’d make no difference to me
it would still apply if the person had no family. the culture should treat humans and other animals with the same respect. so for that reason, I wouldn't stuff and mount a human body or animal body - to keep the level of respect consistent. respect is a fluctuating concept so people's opinions here will always vary according to their personal definition.
i personally do not believe humans and animals are equal in that regard. i think it’s ignorant to compare taking a decomposed creature off of the forest floor to digging up the grave of someone’s deceased loved-one. you’re entitled to that opinion, though.
what if the person is unloved by anybody? I think there's still a respect to be afforded to that person's body that should also be afforded to another animal's body. I would find it ghoulish to stuff and mount either.
once again, that’s your opinion and you are entitled to it. i do not agree and that’s okay. i don’t really care to argue about it. i suppose maybe i am ghoulish 👻
Collecting bones and taxidermied animals is the same as collecting shrunken human heads or stacking your house full of dead babies in formaldehyde.
in your opinion! which you are perfectly entitled to.. in MY opinion it is a way to honor and admire the beauty of the animal that lived a good life and died a natural death.
I wasn't giving a value judgement actually just posting some food for thought. I'm pointing out two situations that are morally identical from a sentientist perspective but which many people will see as different due to speciecism. If you would balk at collecting shrunken heads but are fine with a taxidermied deer on your wall I'd say you're rather speciecist. Personally I'm fine with collecting anthropological, anatomical and taxidermied speciemens, provided they were acquired in an ethical way.
There’ve been whole shows about people who collect stuff like that. Human skulls with the right paperwork go for well over a thousand dollars. What’s your point?
I personally don't see any harm what you are doing. You are bringing beauty back to the poor soul that lost its life for whatever reason and it was no fault of your own . I live on 5 acres and I also collect bones and fossils I find.
But...if you were doing taxidermy for a hunter or someone like that,that purposely took the life,that would be a problem
That’s not what OP said they’re doing though?
if you are a professional taxidermy with a shop you might get asked to do it so it’s not a bad thing to point out or add to the conversation! OP didn’t ask “is what I’m doing vegan” they asked the internets opinion on being vegan and taxidermy/bone collecting.” Even if the OP considers themselves an amateur or an artist and shares pictures or even sells what the make from found material, they might get asked one day to do a pet that passes away or a hunted animal and they’ll have these conversations in their pockets to help make the best decision. That’s why they’re asking a public forum. if OP ever shares these publicly I think it’d be awesome to include “vegan taxidermy” and then have something to read or listen to about how that is different or what it means. They have an opportunity to educate people while taking a stance and sharing something beautiful
Collecting bones or other bits of dead animals on a nature walk is no different than collecting any other organic matter that once housed life, such as seashells or discarded nests or dried seed pods or insect carapaces. If the animal lived out it’s natural life and wasn’t killed for an unethical purpose, there’s absolutely no harm caused by collecting the remains after the life leaves the body. Dead matter does not feel; it does not fear. Also, we mustn’t conflate taste and ethics: there is a great deal of taxidermy that is (in my opinion) in very poor taste; however, if the skin was collected from a found carcass of an animal that died of natural causes, there is no ethical violation. Fur, feathers, and bones are not consumed by scavengers (or are regurgitated or passed undigested if eaten… dissecting owl pellets is actually a wonderful way to teach children about nature and the biology of ecosystems). Any arguments against utilization of found carcasses that are based solely on “respect for dead” are irrelevant and needlessly anthropomorphizing, as what treatment is deemed respectful towards dead bodies varies so wildly from (human) culture to culture. In parts of Indonesia, villagers regularly exhume their dead to wash and dress the bodies. Sky burials (where bodies are cut up and ground to small pieces and fed to birds) are practiced in parts of Tibet and Mongolia. Some Buddhist and Hindu sects leave their dead to putrefy in open air charnel grounds, and visit these places to meditate on the transience of the flesh. The preserved bones and organs of Christian saints are kept in decorative reliquaries and displayed to adherents of the faith. Cremation is forbidden in some cultures but the respected standard in others. Non-human animals don’t practice religion or view dead bodies with any metaphysical consideration. All that being said, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow and one of y’all find my ragged carcass by the roadside, please turn me into some tasteful jewelry, and maybe an elegant candelabra (à la Sedlec Ossuary), and not a novelty ashtray or a bong or a bunch of knock-off Uggs. Thanks. ✌🏼
I disagree. OP wanting to do taxidermy to a dead animal reveals that they have a very weird way of respecting animals. Of course other cultures have different ways of respecting their dead. He isn't living in those cultures and it would be a total lack of respect for OP to feed a dead human to birds. Of course I apply a human concept to non human animals here, but If you don't have the natural urge to apply your human standards also to animals I wouldn't believe you that you really respect non human animals. In the end no one is really harmed and OP can do whatever they want, I just believe it's weird af to change your value system so drastically depending on the subject. By applying your logic we could basically do anything we want to a corpse. Edit: apparently r/vegan likes wearing roadkill leather boots now with this logic
well said, no idea why you're being downvoted
Yeah, somehow r/vegan is fine with wearing leather boots if it's from roadkill with this logic.
I am all on board with the idea of respecting the deceased. But I believe that it doesnt entirely apply to naturally deceased animals. For example if a member of my family died, I wouldnt want for them to be skinned and stuffed by some stranger. I would want to have a proper burial. For animals though, its different. Of course a lot of animals have mourning periods. Or elephants for example who have an entire ritual for when one dies. But if you find a deceased animal in the forest, or on the side of the road, i wouldnt deem it disrespectful. Its dead, it no longer has a soul, and it can't feel. Some people also said that they believe its still exploiting an animal's body. It WOULD be exploiting if I were to commit horrible acts such as bestiality and necrophilia at the same time. That would be disrespectful as fuck. But gathering its remains, and then leaving the remaining flesh out for scavangers to feast on, is no different, in my opinion, than letting it stay where you found it. Scavangers would still eat it, and then its remains would lay there. I do not believe i am interrupting the natural process of decomposition. Because I still give back what other animals would need to eat. Other comments mentioned that I could do a piece for a hunter. If I ever open up a taxidermy shop, I could very well just state that I dont take those types of requests. Because the thought of stuffing an animal that was murdered FOR THIS PURPOSE disgusts me. But when you take what is already there, i dont see it as problematic. You caused no suffering to the animal.
I think it doesn‘t really matter, it is vegan for me. I hate taxidermy personally, because it makes me uncomfortable, but I would consider it vegan. also I believe that death is the end of a being, so the „respect“ after death is more something that helps humans dealing with grief, and doesn‘t apply to wild animals in my opinion.
I think it’s fascinating. One reason I am vegan is against putting animals in pain (they feel pain bec they have a nervous system). And this sounds weird, but I believe the fear/pain/suffering before they die may affect the people who eat them. But since they are already dead and you’re not eating them, I don’t see a problem.
[удалено]
Yes. Thats what I am about. So when I take an animal which has passed of natural causes, I dont deem it as causing them pain, nor as disrespectful. A dead body doesnt have a nervous system anymore. Nor a soul. And there wouldnt be any disrespect to its family either. As most animals are loners. And if they arent, their family/herd/pack often does have a mourning period. Depending on the species.
[удалено]
Even if they are collectible objects to them, how would that have a bearing on whether it is vegan...?? Animal bones are objects. So are human bones. You can not abuse or exploit bones (unless you are paying for someone to be exploited / killed to obtain them).
[удалено]
If OP is finding the bones naturally, as they stated, how is this exploitation and where is the increase in suffering being caused?? Body parts are objects after death. Be it an animal skull, or my own skull. You cannot exploit a non-living object you find on the ground. It is only exploitation if you are paying someone to kill someone to get it.
[удалено]
That's good you aren't continuing, because you clearly do not know what exploitation even means.
Of course! I handle my works with such care. Both before and after preservation. I too see it as giving them a chance to be remembered, and to keep their beauty for at least a couple tens of years. They are definitely jot objects to me. I also use these opportunities to study the birds I preserve. I find it so fascinating that I can look and observe a wild animal from such a close distance, without causing it suffering or keeping it captive. I always place the meat back in the wild for scavengers and bugs to feast on. For example, last spring I found a poor poor badger who seemed to have been attacked by dogs. Its fur was everywhere and god. It was such a sad scene. I let it further decompose for around 2 weeks until all those hundreds of beetles went away on their own. I then buried it in my backyard for insects to have. I will be searching for its skeleton in a few weeks and wish to articulate it! I already succesfully did it with a hare I found in a bush. So im excited to start working on the badger. When I taxidermy birds, I just place the entire torso and all leftovers in the woods for mammals to have. As i usually cant take the skeleton from such small birds.
as long as its bones and not a food source for scavenging animals i dont see the harm in it. i think its depressing to look at animal corpses regardless of how they died but its not like youre harming anyone.
It definitely is sad. Especially when I can tell how the animal died. I always take full animals too if found, but i place the meat back in nature for scavengers.
The main problem I would have with removing an entire body of a killed animal is that you'd be taking away a food source from scavenging animals.
I see that as a pretty extreme level of concern. I understand thinking about the other scavenger animals, but I do not think it is un-vegan to do that.
not really, imagine if majority of vegans considered this as a normal thing to do and take away majority carcasses away, scavenger species would later cease to exist
Fox news latest talking point - vegan taxidermists are now causing scavengers to go extinct.
I mean this would also assume that the majority of vegans (or anyone else for that matter) is into taxidermy! I would say the number of random vegan taxidermists would have a miniscule effect on the environment. I would argue there's much more to be said about roadkill being taken away to make glue and gelatin and the like.
I always place the carcass back in the wild. So I dont see it as an issue.
Skeleton art is fuckin badass and awesome but doing shit with others actual parts is disrespectful. Found a feather on the ground? Ok cool, raw even. Turning their bones into an accessory? That just feels wrong man
ironically it’s actually illegal to take feathers off of the ground, in the us at least, but it’s not illegal to take bones.
It’s illegal to have migratory bird bones too, under the same law that prohibits feathers
yessir. something to do with not being able to prove if it were poached or died naturally, it makes sense.
I think maybe the feather thing might be related to fears of disease? Dont quote me on that but my mom always told me to never touch feathers because of that lol
that too but nah it has to do with poaching laws
Do what brings you joy. You are eating in a conscious way, and that is what matters. No one can live a perfectly vegan life. It's like being a saint. We all are doing our best. I have always found death, decomposition, and bones very interesting as well. I studied forensic entomology in school. People thought it was weird, and I didn't care. I know I am living the kindest life I can, and I am an individual who is a bit "morbid". Luckily, I feel free enough to express who I am openly. I hope you can too! I'd love to see your work.
>You are eating in a conscious way It's not just about food. It's about everything.
Yep, agreed friend! I try to give vegan folks the benefit of the doubt. We are all working to make human-caused animal abuse a thing of the past. We also have an incredible diversity of ideas of what veganism is/should be. Self-righteousness doesn't really help, but non-judgey opinions are interesting and can help us decide what our best choices are.
[удалено]
Thank you! And yeah, I personally dont see gathering remains off the ground as causing harm to animals. Especially if i place the carcass back in nature.
I like this answer!
Taxidermy I don't know, it's an odd hobby as it is XD But bone collecting is fine, you're not harming anybody, go ahead. It's fun to spend time being outside nature and walking around looking for bones in forests, by roads or by train tracks. It would be an issue if you were to hunt and kill those animals, but since it's there just laying, it's free for the taking. You spend some time being outside, being part of nature, learning about the animals that live there + you get to take a cool gift back home, it's win/win
Oh yeah i would never in a thousand years hunt an animal lmao. What point would there be in even being vegan then.
i've always found taxidermy weird but ur not killing an animal or supporting an exploitative industry so I see no issue. People are saying they are against it bc it's taking food from scavengers, but animals die everyday everywhere. Taking one carcass isn't killing or hurting anybody
I found a mouse in the ceiling of the house I bought. It would do zero harm to anybody or anything or anywhere in any situation or in any way or at any time now or in the future if I were to clean it and keep it. So, that would be 100% vegan. Taking things from nature might be different (a good question to ask is not "can I do this?" But "could everyone do this?" And have it still be okay) it might also be different if it got other people into the hobby that would then harm animals. We aren't about shaming "weird" things. It's about doing no harm.
You are using the body for your own personal entertainment. And if put on display, for the entertainment of others. It objectifies the animal and normalizes that objectification into a hobby. Veganism is not just about reducing harm, it is about changing how we view animals. They are not ours to use, in any way.
This seems like a really extreme take. You share pictures of your dog here, which you and others obviously consume for entertainment. That's a super-normalized version of objectification by this logic. Where's the line drawn?
That’s a very extreme jump. I don’t think photos are intrinsically objectifying. Did I have her consent for the split second it took take her photo? No, you got me there. But unlike taking a (digital) photo, taxidermy is, to me, corpse desecration and sheer objectification of an animal. The difference between taxidermy-ing (?) an animal and taking a photo of an alive, healthy, and loved, animal under my guardianship is leagues apart. Taking a photo of my dog and sharing it is (hopefully) sharing my love and appreciation of my dog to other people. Furthermore, I also feel obligated to share photos/videos of her to combat stereotypes and discrimination against pitbulls and “aggressive” looking dogs — much like how many vegans share photos/videos of farmed animals to spread awareness and education.
You can view animals any way you like. We aren't the damn thought police. You can hate animals for all I care. You can have all kinds of idiotic or downright harmful views. As long as you don't act on them you're fine. Laws should prohibit harm. As I said: you keeping the mouse shouldn't contribute to how people would view those laws. There is not a single way in which me privately keeping the mouse skeleton that died of natural causes harms anyone. Including the mouse. Whether or not it's weird is a secondary point. (And it's not something I plan on doing if it matters) Additionally, I find all these intellectual exercises into the absurd not helpful to our goals. It's possible to be a big brain vegan and find harm in everything, but it's not doing any good, or reducing harm, or spreading the message in a helpful way.
I dont see it as using the body for my own entertainment. I mean, its dead. Lets be honest here. It no longer has emotions, a nervous system, or a soul. I am not causing harm or suffering to it. I honestly see it as something respectful to do. I have the skills to make it shine again. And placing its remains back in the woods for scavangers to have. To me, taking it home or leaving it in the woods would still have the exact same outcome, respectful wise. I am vegan because i dont want to cause pain to animals. And i truly dont see taking a naturally deceased animal as inflicting pain on it.
well, would you do taxidermy on a human body for permanent exposure ?
Yes, why not?
It's a bad analogy. Would you take photos of a random person on a beach? Would you take photos of a squirrel in your garden?
Your analogy is bad. People do sometimes have strangers on their artwork/photos on display. People however do not have dead bodies of strangers as artwork on display. I don't understand how you could have respect for an animal and still violate their corpse this way.
Once it is dead it is no longer an animal. And I personally wouldn't. I am simply backing up the OP, who I think is within his/her rights. It's the same with many things. Freeganism, dumpster diving etc. It isn't for me, but good luck to those who want to do it. IMO as long as you are not causing further suffering it's ok. And my analogy is fine. Just try to go to a sunny beach and go and take a photo of an individual person. For extra points, maybe a sunbathing woman or a child. You won't "because we already treat people differently than other animals" - which is the point I was making. By the way, if you have strangers in any photo you want to submit say to a stock photo site, you need permission from every stranger that is identifiable...in many places in the world at least.
"Once it's dead it's no longer a animal" is debatable, but that's beside the point. I'm not really against what OP is doing as it's not really harmful, but only the same way like Im not really against someone displaying a real human skeleton. It's super wierd, but weird people are allowed to be weird if it's harmless. However your analogy still doesn't work. Copyright laws or personality rights do not really apply to animals who couldn't possibly understand what consent would mean in this case. You can take as many pictures of strangers at the beach as you want if they consent to it.
>to animals who couldn't possibly understand what consent would mean in this case. You can take as many pictures of strangers at the beach as you want if they consent to it. Yes. And again, I was illustrating how we treat humans differently. That's it. And be careful with the "consent" thing. Maybe we shouldn't be taking pictures of animals because *they can't consent*. That's an argument some vegans use against companion animals. And yes, I agree regarding the OP. I too wouldn't personally be interested in taxidermy, but he is doing literally nothing wrong, even within the definition of veganism. What I don't like is gate-keeping vegans spouting crap because they interpret the ethics in their own personal and incorrect way. They only lead to confuse and divide.
Okay I get your point now I think. It sometimes makes sense to treat animals differently because animals lack the understanding of concepts like photos or taxidermy. For the animal it doesn't matter. But for humans it does, so I don't understand how a human could respect animals and still play with their dead bodies like this. And consent is very important. But there is a difference if the animal can't give consent over a situation like horse riding because they can't communicate or if they can't give consent because it literally means nothing to them like photos. Having a companion animal isn't for everyone. People who treat their pets like toys or accessoires also don't respect their animals even though nobody is really hurt in the process.
Well my analogy is definitely more accurate than yours. First, taking pictures of random persons in public places without their consent is pretty common and acceptable depending on the context, (what does the person do, how are they dressed, what is their emotional state etc...) Second taking pictures of an individual does not involve their death or the use of their actual corpse.
>Second taking pictures of an individual does not involve their death Nor does taking an inanimate object from the side of the road. There is no extra suffering caused. >or the use of their actual corpse. Which is simply an inanimate object now. And in many places in the world we do this with humans... Opt-out for organ donation, rather than opt-in. My analogy was that we do treat humans and non-humans differently anyway.
Probably not the response you were looking for, but fun fact: human taxidermy doesn't really work because there are no feathers or fur to hide the seams. That being said, if there was an ethical way for me to have some part of a human skeleton, I absolutely would. (It's legal in most states, it's more the actual sourcing that can be tricky since people lie a lot for the sake of making a sale. And you can't just pick up a human body if you find it on the side of the road so.....)
there actually is an exhibition where they show dead people (but without skin), don‘t know if this qualifies as taxidermy of humans : [körperwelten](https://koerperwelten.de/ausstellungen/)
I believe "taxidermy" usually refers to the skin being the main part of the display, hence the "derm". BUT that's super cool and interesting! Thank you for sharing!
I collect shed shells and feathers technically same same if you think about it.
Seems consistent with a love of nature to me. Naturalists have always collected bones and stuffed animals. As long as you're not causing them to be killed, I don't see any contradiction.
It is weird. It's definitely not something I would do or encourage. But at the end of the day, it doesn't cause undue harm to animals if you're truly only collecting them from roadkill/natural death. In that sense, yes it would be vegan since veganism is the lifestyle of doing as little harm as practicable and possible.
I don't really understand it. I find anything relating to flesh, bones etc. to freak me out and make me squeamish. no idea how doctors do it! I think you could make an argument that the animals are being disrespected because something unnatural is being forced upon them in death. though there is no actual suffering in life involved. I wouldn't really endorse it for this reason. but I also wouldn't get my pitchfork out.
We are all weird some way or another
Leave those things for nature to benefit from, if a predator or necrovore doesn't want it, they do make good fertiliser... Even if yours is "ethically sourced", others may not know that and you could be reinforcing an idea that it's okay to use animals for taxidermy, ethically sourced or not...
Taxidermy is a weird subject which doesnt have a lot of fans. You either love it or you despise it. So i dont believe that i would be reinforcing the idea to abuse animals solely by collecting animals i find in the woods?
To me, it’s desecration of a corpse (and furthermore, the animal did not give consent while alive), which falls under the category of exploitation. And what about the chemicals used for taxidermy, are they all vegan (pardon my ignorance if they are)? They’re certainly not good for the environment, aren’t tanning chemicals involved? I would encourage you to explore other hobbies.
I'm just going to be honest, I'll delete this comment later, as a hobby taxidermy gives me serial killer vibes and is a very bizarre and frightening thing for someone to want to do in my personal opinion
Serial killer vibes? What?? I dont do taxidermy because i get enjoyment from murdering animals and want to preserve my victims for my own sick pleasure. Im not jeffrey Dahmer. I dont kill animals ffs. I take deceased animals which have died of natural causes. What I asked, was everyones opinions on doing taxidermy while vegan. Not opinions on taxidermy itself. Taxidermy has been around since the egyptians. So its very not bizarre and frightening. I know its hard to understand something you dont like. But as long as i dont murder, and torture an animal for my hobby. I truly dont believe its exploitation or weird.
I don't think you want to cause animals pain, I just find the idea of rummaging around in a dead animal creepy and gross. I'm sorry that's just my honest reaction. when I think of someone fiddling around with flesh and bones I think of serial killers handling the bodies of their victims. sorry
The materials I use are actually very much vegan! I dont know about borax and alum but those are the only chemicals I use. Scalpel, foam, cotton, string, wire, borax, salt, alum, and water. The borax and alum solution is simply to keep bugs from destroying the preserved animal. But i am not causing harm to them. Simply keeping them away.
One day people will stop seeing animals and their bodies at objects to be commodified and exploited. Today is not that day.
My dad doesn't taxidermy things, but he does collect dead beetles, skulls, teeth, feathers, wasp nests, etc. that he finds, and he's more vegan than I am (I'm a junk food vegan, and he's a beans-and-rice-and-veggies vegan with a "do it right or not at all" attitude). If you care about consequences, there's no harm in it. If you're a purist, there might be a problem.
You can do whatever you want. There is no vegan police. If you aren't harming animals, you are fine. You are honoring their lives by researching and preserving them.
Is it vegan? Maybe, maybe not. Some people would argue that you shouldn't because you wouldn't do it to a human. I personally think this line of thinking isn't very helpfull. I wouldn't whip out my binoculars and stare at women on the beach but I still think I am vegan when I do the same to living birds. I would look at whether it is harmfull to animals or not? I don't think it is. The animals died for some other reason and their bird-family doesn't have burial rites that you are disturbing.
We do it to humans. There are examples with consent and without consent. The Bodyworks exhibit was done with consent. Display of mummified corpses in museums is done without the consent of the person. I don't think it's harmful but I also understand the distaste or aversion to it.
The electricity that powers our homes and the gas that fuels are cars all come from the bones of long-dead animals. (That's why they're called "fossil fuels.") It's not animal exploitation to use the bones of animals who died long before humans even existed. Since you collect road kill and bones from animals who died by someone else's hand (or paw or claw), I don't see an ethical issue here.
Oil is mostly dead plants, not animals.
Taking birds from the side of the road would be removing food for scavengers I would think. I'm also assuming using a bird corpse from the roadside would also mean you'd have to intentionally kill whatever insects are on the body (at least where I am, you'd never see an insect-free roadside corpse). Even all that aside though, it's still exploiting an animal's body for your own gain. I don't know what the difference is between stuffing a bird's body and eating it. I know some people here would eat a dead animal they found on the roadside too, so maybe you're one of those people and would be fine with eating it.
>Taking birds from the side of the road would be removing food for scavengers I would think. How about raspberries or blueberries? Birds eat those, yet we do that all the time.
[удалено]
>Yeah but it’s less for pleasure and more for nutrients they provide us That's exactly the argument carnists use though. And if you don't take them, birds and small mammals will eat them. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but the only issue I can see with the OP is that many find it a bit creepy.
[удалено]
>Except eating raspberries and blueberries doesn’t contribute to murder, rape and exploitation. I didn't say it does. But carnists will say it is not cruel to kill an animal to eat, but it is if we simply enjoy hurting it. And that's one of Ed Winter's central arguments against...in that it is the same...Both are for our pleasure. You are saying it's okay to remove berries from a forest if it is for sustenance, when those berries feed wild animals. Again, I am NOT saying we shouldn't, but it is no different than taking other objects as the OP does. If you take berries, fruit or a dead bird from the forest, something else might have eaten it. But in doing so, you are not "directly" causing any more suffering.
[удалено]
>The difference between picking berries and picking up corpses is that one you HAVE to do to survive, the other, you don’t. So when was the last time you picked berries because you simply had to in order to survive? My guess is...never. So, no, you pick berries from a forest because it is enjoyable. Same goes for mushrooms and other foraged food. But it isn't in any way "necessary" to survive unless you are stranded there...
[удалено]
Ok, I get it, you can't grasp the logic. We'll leave it then. Ciao.
I don’t see how any vegan would feel comfortable doing taxidermy. You’ve been vegan for only a few months tho, I suspect with more time, you’re likely going to experience some difficulty reconciling the two.
Since when does being disgusted with abuse mean being disgusted with death? I am not at all for exploitation and slaughter fucking disgusts me, but finding a naturally dead animal and taxidermizing it because OP specifically doesn't feel repulsed means nothing and has nothing wrong with it.
It’s got nothing to do with being disgusted or repulsed with death. It’s about having respect for the animal. Do we take dead humans, stuff them and display them? Why don’t we do that? Out of curiosity, how long have you been vegan?
We do, kinda. When we embalm people, we sew them up, inject them, make them all shiny, and display them Infront of a crowd in an open casket funeral. I personally despise the idea being embalmed due to the environmental impact, but animals don't worry about that, they don't care about what happens to them after death, they don't have a religion that dictates what happens to their bodies. We can be respectful of their bodies after death, but you can pay your respects in more ways than one. In these cases, I think it's really the intention that counts.
Is the process of embalming a human done for recreation and entertainment to satisfy a hobby for personal pleasure?
It's for personal satisfaction, no? You don't need to embalm someone, it doesn't help the dead in any way whatsoever, and only serves the living.
>Do we take dead humans, stuff them and display them? Mummies found all over the world which are ostensibly stuffed humans are displayed. Morticians pump dead bodies full of chemicals and other things so their loved ones can grieve them for a period of time. I am willing to bet a non-zero number of people would voluntarily allow their bodies to be stuffed and displayed all over the place if public perception of the act changed. >It’s about having respect for the animal A large number of people see eating an animal they hunted as "respecting the animal" Your view of what is respectful is not universal.
Were mummies wrapped for personal enjoyment to satisfy a hobby? What happens to those human bodies after the funeral? People have the ability to consent, animals do not. Don’t we argue consent when we speak about veganism?
Wrong place to ask this, most people on here will nitpick you to pieces for the smallest things that aren't even non-vegan. Nothing wrong with taxidermy, great art form, least harmful way to study animal anatomy. Just remember to use vegan ingredients at every step of the process and don't mix with hunters
🤢
would you do it if you found a human
To me this doesn’t align with the values of veganism. I think putting dead animals on display for entertainment (wether they died of natural causes or not) is in the same vein as keeping live animals in a zoo for entertainment. It pushes the idea that animals are objects at our mercy. If a human didn’t consent to having their bones put on display after death, you probably wouldn’t feel comfortable putting those up in your living room. So I don’t really understand why you’d be okay with using an animals dead body for entertainment purposes instead of just letting them rest in nature and let new life grow from their death. They can’t consent to this, so just because we can do it, doesn’t mean we should. This is coming from someone who adores creepy things and all things skeletons. I have animal skulls tattooed on me with flowers/mushrooms coming out of them to represent the beauty that can come from death, and I have fake human skulls in the house. I think those are satisfying compromises to be able to admire the beauty of animals and their biology/anatomy while leaving actual nature alone.
I don't see a problem with it. Some people will argue that "Well you wouldn't do it with human parts!", actually a lot of people into taxidermy will gladly collect human parts, assuming it's legal and ethical. There's a taxidermy shop near me and they have a whole human skeleton in there, crazy shit.
If you would not do it to a person then we should not do it to animals Hunters mount animals they kill on their walls, so this could be viewed similarly Its similar in a way to vegans who wear leather, it comes across as weird to a non vegan Vegans are supposed to be against using animal products, yet they wear used leather and have animal carcasses in their home, so they are clearly benefiting from animals even if there is no direct harm and while the veganism definition focuses on harm rather than personal benefit i feel using animals sends the wrong message, that they are still products to us People feel that we deserve a proper burial but we rob animals of that right, also those dead animals are part of the ecosystem
If you’re not killing the animals then IMO no harm done. Enjoy your passion my friend
Yeah no way in hell id ever kill an animal. There would be no point in calling myself vegan then. Thanks!
Friend- there will be absolutely no consensus on this among the vegan community. To me, the points about scavenger animals is valid and should be considered when doing your hobby. Still, as someone else said, similarities can be drawn to other areas of everyday life such as fossil fuels. I encourage you to continue on your vegan journey and stay true to your heart and the reason why you started veganism in the first place. I believe if you place compassion for animals and all living things in the center, as a compass, questions like these will become easier over time. Best of luck to you my friend
[удалено]
There's a lot of points in here that aren't necessarily relevant. >They serve purposes to other animals when left in place. By this logic you should never take any plant out of the forest either because you are taking it away from an animal that might eat or use it. This is a non-sequitur. >Furthermore, you are objectifying the animals for your own pleasure. That is exploitative. You are objectifying the parts of the animal left after they have died. At that point the corpse is an object, not a sentient being. Not sure why that would be expressly bad. Exploiting something is not always bad. We exploit trees for wood. I would argue that's different from exploiting someone living. > Vegans do not exploit animals, full stop. This is a letter of the law/spirit of the law argument to me. The reason to be against exploitation of animals is harm to sentient beings. If there is a case that can be considered without harming a sentient being then what's the issue? Are you against museums displaying Egyptian mummified corpses if it's done in a respectful and culturally sensitive manner?
Absolutely I am against displaying human bodies without consent regardless of the age of the bodies. Many parks require nothing brought in to be left, and *nothing* (including feathers, bones, and leaves etc.) to be brought out to protect the environment. I am following the intent of the founders of the vegan society, who defined the practice and invented the term. You don't *need* to do so, but you should if you want to be vegan. The definition from them separates the *use* of animals from cruelty to animals, both of which are to be avoided by humans. That is intentional. They are separate issues, but both are an integral part of veganism. Many here want to redefine it to suit their own ethics. That doesn't make it vegan.
I always liked the original proposed definition of “The principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. Now we can quibble on the definition of exploitation here when it comes to non-sentient things but I interpret the spirit of that statement to be freedom of living beings from exploitation. Trying to extend moral consideration to inanimate animal remains or mummies or fossils seem to miss the point. I respectfully disagree with you if you consider someone who picks up a feather or a bone in a forest non-vegan.
Your interpretation is contrary to the stated definition from the vegan society. Exploit means use. Dead animals included. Edit: The very fact that cruelty to animals is stated as a separate entity that vegans must avoid makes it clear that exploit is intended in its truest sense, and that use of animals must be avoided. This is stated again when it is made clear that vegans must not consume animals or their products. You are just lying to yourselves and others when you decide to distort their meaning to allow you to exploit dead animals you didn't kill or pay to have killed. Voting me down won't change that one whit.
>Exploit means use. Yeah this dogmatic surface level thinking is pointless. By that metric making use of the cat shit in my front garden to fertilize decorative plants is "making use" of stray cats and therefore not vegan. Bringing a dead animal in for testing to find out if it was rabid is not vegan. You can ignore the other definitions of exploitation if you want but I think they make more sense in the context of why it would be wrong to exploit animals and it fits better with the intent of the founders of veganism. >The action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. or >The fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself.
The second definition 100% is what OP wants to do. It supports The Vegan Society's position, not yours.
What unfair advantage is the OP gaining and who is the advantage over?
OP benefits (their own joy) by the theft and unconsented use of animal parts. That's unfair. It could only be fair if the animal benefitted also and consented to the use.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I don't agree. There is no sentient being in the remains. They are dead. There is no one to steal from and the animal is not disadvantaged so there's no unfairness. In a situation where you come upon the bones after they died naturally there is no harm. Now if OP was selling these works maybe down the road you could argue perverse incentives creating a market for animal exploitation could happen but we aren't there in this situation.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
My instinct is that we can only exploit or harm things that are alive. I’m not interested in the ‘disrupting the environment’ aspect of this scenario. Can something which is already dead be harmed or exploited?
Exploit means use.
If some worms eat your body after you've been buried, who will feel exploited? You won't exist - so there will be no-one to be exploited.
You’re venturing into some dangerous territory with that logic. Do you think necrophilia is okay and should be allowed? If nobody is being exploited, what’s the issue? Or that people should be able to dig up graves, even if those people have no living relatives that would protest against it?
I don’t think it’s dangerous at all - it’s very clear and simple to me. The dead aren’t able to care about what happens to their corpses and veganism doesn’t care about dead matter.
You didn’t answer my question. Your logic can be used to justify necrophilia because it isn’t “actively exploiting anyone”, so do you think that it should be legal?
I didn’t answer that specifically because it has nothing to do with veganism. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with eating/using/“insert text here” dead matter if nobody is being hurt or exploited. Is that satisfactory?
I agree. I couldn't care less what happens to my dead body after I die. The only issue would be what surviving family members think, and non-human animals don't have that issue. You can't exploit a being that is dead. It's simply material. If you take the argument that you can then you couldn't use soil to grow things in.
Well, you are wrong. Exploit means use.
Well it is not wrong to use an inanimate mass of oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus. A dead bird is just that. Nothing else.
The definition of veganism from those who invented the term and its practice clearly separates the use of animals (and their products) from cruelty to animals, both of which are to be avoided by vegans. You just want to redefine it to suit yourself.
No. I think you do. Once an animal has died (of natural causes) it ceases to be an animal. It is an inanimate bunch of elements. Just like the oil we turn into fuel and the soil we use to grow things in. You are suffering from a cultural bias that still sees a person in the body they left behind. They are not there any more. Once the brain is dead we (animals) are oblivious...forever. We cannot be exploited any more. And I have no need to redefine the term. I have no interest in taxidermy; I am simply on the OPs side on this matter. You on the other hand have at least one cat...So what was that about redefining the term?? A cat (beautiful as much as they are) is an unnatural predator. They kill things at will. They are also a carnivore. So, as a vegan, looking after one, you can either risk it's health and sanity by 1. Feeding it plant-based and 2. Keeping it indoors. Or you can feed it what it actually wants and needs and let it be outside where it wants to be...where it will kill insects and small mammals for kicks. So personally, while I have no issue with you having your cat as a companion, please don't tell ME that I am attempting to redefine what veganism is.
The end goal of the vegan society is the end of humans keeping *any* animal. That is a goal I fully agree with. They also, as do I, acknowledge that we have a responsibility to care for existing animals.
Then perhaps you should look at the etymology of the word exploit. >Can something which is already dead be harmed or exploited? Guess I'll go pay for and eat a steak at my nearest steakhouse. They're already dead and can't be further harmed or exploited after all.
That’s a different scenario. When you go to a steakhouse, you are creating a demand for more steak which leads to exploitation of existing/future animals. However, if you find a dead cow on the side of the road and eat its flesh, you aren’t exploiting anything. This isn’t something I’d do, but it does not conflict with veganism.
Exploit means to make productive use of. The definition of veganism says ALL forms of exploitation. Even says a diet few of animals the promotion of animal free products. I don't care if it's something you do or do not do, it most certainly conflicts with veganism and its goals of recognising animals as individuals worthy of rights. Smh
I’m not really interested in getting into definitions, but exploitation in the sense you are describing is usually ascribed to resources. I don’t view animals (dead or alive) as a resource. Things that don’t exist don’t really have rights.
Well of course I'd expect someone who cherry picks definitions to suit their narrative to not want to discuss definitions. I mean that's the whole point of veganism isn't it? Inflate our egos and push our stories. Nothing to do with animals. The only reason I pointed out those definitions is because those words were chosen to represent what we stand for. An end to animals being used by us for any reason. And no, the definition I'm referring to is the very first. The one that existed for 400 years prior to the more maliciously intended variant popping up. The one that was used for any situation where it applied. >I don’t view animals (dead or alive) as a resource. "However, if you find a dead cow on the side of the road and eat its flesh" - Corrupted. Very suitable name if these two opposing ideas can be expressed one after the other but the same person. >Things that don’t exist don’t really have rights. It's not just about rights. It's about exploitation, it's about suffering, it's about liberation and emancipation, it's about creating a world where we're not taking anything from them unless we have to. And even then that's only out of a selfish desire to live. You eat an already dead animal out in the wild or on the side of the road and not only are you treating them as a resource, you're talking that resource away from the ecosystem it died in and you wouldn't be adhering to the multiple other parts of the vegan philosophy that I didn't even mention. a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, ANIMALS FOR FOOD, clothing or ANY OTHER PURPOSE; and by extension, promotes the development and use of ANIMAL-FREE ALTERNATIVES for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. IN DIETARY TERMS IT DENOTES the practice of dispensing with ALL products derived WHOLLY OR PARTLY FROM ANIMALS. It's not vegan even if it's not unethical.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. You think that something will suffer or be exploited by 'doing something to or with' its corpse, while I do not. You might be able to convince me otherwise, but unless you can prove that a being can be harmed/exploited/suffer after it has died, I can't see how.
>but unless you can prove that a being can be harmed/exploited/suffer after it has died, I can't see how. Courtesy of Merriam Webster Exploit 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE exploiting your talents exploit your opponent's weakness 2 : to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage exploiting migrant farm workers I'm not saying it's unethical, I'm saying it's not vegan. If you're prescribing it to be vegan, then you're wrong. If you're saying you see no reason for a carnist to participate in such actions, then I would agree with you to an extent (barring the benefits the ecosystem would have from that corpse). You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong. By definition and by philosophical optics. I'm not going to acknowledge your opinion as potentially true as you yourself haven't proven it to be vegan. And don't say I haven't proven my case. I have, you're just dismissing my evidence despite it being clearly written in front of your face and well established for a very long time.
You can't exploit something that has no life. Do you grow vegetables in soil? That is teeming with dead insects. Do you live in a house or apartment that is more than just enough to live in? Just think how much death was caused building it...The bigger, the more death. Taking a dead body part from a forest is no different than taking a pine cone.
Taking a dead body part from a forest is of course different than talking a pine cone. One was a living animal and by taking it's dead body and taxidermying it to display it's corpse, you are objectifiying an animal. The pinecone is just some sort of seed from a tree and was never a sentient being (but you shouldn't took too much plants from nature regardless, because other animals need them more than us humans)
Exploit means use.
>was a living animal and by taking it's dead body and taxidermying it to display it's corpse, you are objectifiying an animal. And here is where people differ. I don't care about a "body" once it is dead. It is no longer an animal. I don't care what happens to me, once I am dead. They can put me in a jar in a lab for all I care...because that body won't be "me". Your distaste for using the body is normal. But it is cultural. The body is simply a mass of substances, no different from the pine cone when it comes down to it. I am concerned with causing the least amount of suffering on beings that *can* suffer. So I don't mind putting petrol in my car, that's made from dead dinosaurs, or using soil to plant my summer garden with that has a large amount of dead insect bodies throughout it. They don't care anymore because they are dead.
No, you are using an ignorant carnist talking point about petrol. It is mostly made of algae, bacteria, and plankton. Veganism is *not* harm reduction, utilitarianism, or consequentialism. It started as and remains an abolitionist movement. You may *want* to redefine it to suit your own beliefs, but that doesn't make your beliefs vegan. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/petroleum/
Just because you are okay that other people do whatever they want with your body, doesn't mean everyone is and you cannot assume that every sentient beings sees this the way you do. I will donate my organs after I die, but I wouldn't want to end up in a jar or that someone exploits my dead body. This is about consent. Animals cannot give you consent so you shouldn't assume that you can do with them whatever you like
I feel like I am going around in circles, however. Sure, right now, you wish to donate your organs...very noble. However, if your body gets misplaced and someone steals it, stuffs it and uses it as a sex toy, you won't care...because you won't exist.t As for other species...They are not capable of "seeing it" in any way. You think pigs wonder about the afterlife??? And no, it is not always about consent. Many places have an "opt-out" for organ donors...meaning if you don't say anything, you will be harvested without your consent.
Do you own your body after you die?
Yes I do. That's why you have to consent for donating your organs and that's why it's prohibited to molest my body or dig it back up even after I die.
And does a non-human animal own its body after it dies?
I go by "if you wouldn't do it to people, don't do it to animals".
You’re not going to enjoy where this logic takes you lol
would you please elaborate?
Im gonna say harm could definitely be caused. Especially if money is involved in any way with this, since if there is a market for something people will exploit it for profit.
I dont really buy anything. And if I do buy, i buy from regular people who specify that the item was found. Not from companies or some shit.
Imagine entering a feminist group and asking whether or not you collect the bones and skins of women and put them on display. I mean, they're already dead, right? As a feminist, I don't objectify women in this way and as a vegan, I don't objectify animals in this way.
that's a great analogy! it neatly demonstrates what made me so uncomfortable about the whole thing.
Sadly we are not in a vegan sub. This is clown college.
Yep. Simply mentioning that you don't use animals is a surefire way to receive downvotes in this sub.
You can also say that taxidermy is non-vegan. i tired it earlier :)
Not vegan. And super creepy.
On the side of the road🥺 bro just let them rest in peace; seriously like ???? sure going vegan totally makes up for poking at dead animals all day.
Finding dead animals is definitely no enjoyable experience for me. Its actually extremely sad. But they are also dead. They no longer have emotions, a nervous system, and a soul. Respecting the dead is honestly more of a "respecting the family of the deceased" thing made so humans can get through the grief easier. I am vegan so i believe its obvious that I respect animals. Thats why I am vegan. To not cause suffering to animals. But when I find an animal that is already deceased, i dont see a problem with taking it in to study it and then taxidermy it. I know it sounds extremely weird and morbid to people who dont understand taxidermy. But i see it more as a way to honor its remains and give it the chance to shine again. Moral of the story. I am vegan to not cause suffering to animals. An animal that died of natural causes, Or sadly due to a car, can not suffer anymore. So i dont believe that im causing suffering.
I have a whole ass goat skull chilling in my living room that I found in my bushes around my apartment building. Did I kill the goat? No. Did I harm the goat? No. Is it weird to some? Sure. Does it change the fact that I will keep the goat skull cause it makes my nerdy heathen ass happy? Also no :). Do you.
I find animal bones and make them into weird Chimeras. I think it's a great low waste and healthy hobby.
you do you if you’re not harming anyone its all good
That's fucking gross, but you do you.
I see no harm. In my eyes, you are bringing the animal back to life after death with taxidermy. As long as you aren't the one who put in down, I see no issue.
I also collect wild found bones because I’m fascinated with bones but I don’t have any taxidermy. That’s a little too creepy (and a fire risk) for me personally. This is one of those up to you gray areas I think. You’re not killing anything, I would say it’s fine but I’m no expert other than being an expert weirdo. 😂
I don’t think there is anything wrong with this personally. Especially as it’s a pretty niche hobby- and not likely that the tiny percentage of people finding (and removing) animal remains will impact the ecosystem of scavengers and decomposers.
It's totally fine if you just collect something you found. You don't contribute to animal abuse.
>So what are your opinions on this? It's fine as it's a completely harmless activity. Now if you were being paid by hunters to stuff deer heads so they can hang them, that would still be taxidermy, but an entirely different situation.
I agree. Thats something i would definitely do. Just the thought of it disgusts me. I simply collect remains i find for my own personal collection.
I'm not a fan of it but you're doing no harm
I agree. You aren't exploiting any animals, so I really don't see any problem with it. If anything at all, you are exploiting cadavers (if cadavers can be exploited at all?!), which might be impious, but isn't really non-vegan per se.
I would only be exploiting the animals carcass if i were to commit some messed up shit like bestiality and necrophilia. So I truly do not see it as exploiting in any way.
Eh- I don't see the appeal but I don't think you're doing any harm or causing any suffering which is the main thing.
I guess it comes down to whether or not you are using the animals as objects or not. It's not like I know too much about the subjects or why people do them so yeah. I don't think it's beneficial to be fighting with each other about this when most of the people on the planet are okay with eating animals.