Airsoftslayer93 said:
surely eating the meat from an endangered animal would be better than leaving it, if you leave it then its gone to wast, its already dead, at least eat it
What exact scenario are you working with here? If I'm starving to death then all bets are off. And I suspect anyone here would kill and eat any animal rather than starve to death.
If someone found a dead Siberian tiger and cooked it, I suppose there would be little harm... but that isn't going to happen. A scenario where this occurred would have to be something along the lines of it being a fresh kill... but how is this going to happen? If said Tiger was hit with a car, then it is an accident, but eating it might encourage more "accidents" so no, I wouldn't eat it. If it had just been killed with a bolt of lightning, or it had been killed by another predator or what not then maybe it would be a "once in a life" thing but really...no one wants to eat mutilated food.
So the final option is that someone already killed it for its meat (or ivory or pelt) and you might as well eat it. I'm going to go with no, because you are then tacitly approving of the death of said endangered animal. It creates a market for it. This is why, when elephant poachers are caught, the ivory is burned. Yeah, it is technically "wasting" it since the animal is already dead, but you don't want to allow any profit or benefit to be made by that animals death.
So no, I would not eat it even if it was already dead. Unless, like any other human being, it was a matter of life or death.