Doesn't the answer lie somewhere in the total mass of roadkill vs. the
capacity of local vermin to eat such roadkill vs. the locality of such
roadkill to a human water source? See no such figures anywhere in that
weblink. Seems more wishful thinking in a negative sort of way. Nothing to
substantiate.

--
Dave
Profound is we're here due to a chance arrangement
of chemicals in the ocean billions of years ago.
More profound is we made it to the top of the food
chain per our reasoning abilities.
Most profound is the denial of why we may
be on the way out.
"Ryan P." wrote in message
...
Chas Hurst wrote:

http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/roadkillfs.pdf

{SNIP}


I'm confused about the "may contaminate water" concern. I can see how
50 dead bodies on top of each other might be a problem, but where do
these people think wild animals go when they die?

Scavengers take care of dead animals in the wild. What did you think?


*I* know that. I was questioning the logic of the above referenced
article. The way it read, it seemed that "dragging carcasses further into
the woods from the roads" was a bad idea as it could contaminate water.

My point was that there are far more animals in cities and towns dieing
in the woods/parks somewhere than there are being composted or cremated.
Using the above logic, we should all have disease-ridden water. :