Hacker News Reader

Comment by AmazingEveryDay | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

This is peak bean soup theory on HN.

Always has to be at least one commenter, "but what about my highly specific scenario? All the other people benefiting are an aberration to my specific need or wild singular example"

Fund SNAP, not discount game meat through the deaths of others.

Nailed it. Adding the fact that the majority of HN comments are negative or at least at odds with the post, HN is a bean soup fallacy/theory/dilemma generation system.

SNAP is funded. Food pantries are abundant. Nobody is eating roadkill to survive as a matter of necessity. If you’re eating carrion that’s probably a lifestyle choice and indicative of some mental illness.

A wildlife overpass is certainly not going to be cheap, but I could see the road user safety benefit penciling out over the life of the asset. I wonder why you would send the animals over (and span the whole roadway) rather than under (cut and cover a box culvert). Either way, it would be nice to see this better funded for rural America.

The CBS article (https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/largest-wildlife-overp...) mentions there's one large overpass which gets all the attention, but also there's five underpasses. There's a photo of some deer using one towards the bottom.

The lives of the animals also matter.

On a related note, they don’t send them under because most wild animals do not like enclosed tunnels and would not use them.

> SNAP is funded.

Disregarding the weird roadkill thing: "Funded" isn't necessarily a meaningful determination, since Congress providing 100% funding for $5 that zero people are eligible to receive would also be "fully funded."

In 2025 Republicans slashed its budget by the biggest cut in history, and today participation is the lowest in 17 years.

I doubt any of us honestly believe the drop is because everybody's financial situation has gotten way better right now, or because groceries got cheaper.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-tracker-p...

> Nobody is eating roadkill to survive as a matter of necessity

Wrong.

Especially in places that culturally frown upon wasted food / meat.

Agree 100%. Also, hitting a deer at highway speeds can lead to the death of the occupants of the vehicle.

This is not some country road!

This is an actual win-win scenario, for humans and wildlife.

> there are many people that have a significant reliance on roadkill to fulfill their dietary needs.

I doubt that many people are collecting roadkill on a 75mph 6-lane divided freeway though, since I can't really think of any safe way to collect it.

But even if you could collect it, hitting anything small at that speed will completely pulverize it, and hitting anything larger will seriously hurt the vehicle's occupants, so it's probably best to stick to smaller roads.

Last thought before the deer goes through my windshield and kills me is: "At least someone can eat this roadkill."

Reducing car/animal collisions is a good thing for cars(drivers) and animals.

My brother almost died in a car wreck with a deer.

Ignoring my incredulity at this response, the risk to the lives of the drivers seems to me to be of greater importance than the potential that some people might benefit from the carcasses lying on the side of road.

I have to admit, my life would be a little more boring without some of the hot takes I find here sometimes

Like, maybe I can just buy you a cheeseburger instead of totalling my car

> going to bed with a deep hunger in the pit of one's stomach.

I'm fine with that, as their dinner shouldn't depend on me suffering an horrible car crash and being hurt or killed.

The people will save a lot of money if they don't need to replace 500 cars each year, therefore more money to feed themselves. They will not be forced to eat dog corpses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com