Please see page 14 of this document as I believe it disputes your claims that there is no need to dispose of any 'road kill of the skies', and that mid air contact almost always severely damages aircraft. In fact, I believe at the end of the page they are discussing that even when dead wildlife is found on the runway, just pushing it aside is not a sensible solution as it attracts more wildlife. Now, granted, this is an American military publication, so much will not apply in Canada and public airports, but it is shown as scientific example of statistics on wildlife damage to planes, and issues connected to such. And much further down there is a small mention of recommending airports incinerate their waste to discourage wildlife, although, I am not saying that this is the kind of incinerator one would use for waste, just that the word leapt out at me when I skimmed a little further. I must admit I haven't had the time to read the entire article yet, it was just the first thing that appeared when I googled 'repair planes from wildlife damage', and it demonstrates my point, that planes can and do hit wildlife and may need to be repaired after, where there may be animal remains.
http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafec...tions/BASH_Mn_21_Dec_09_N32.doc#_Toc176936179
And again, please note that it is not me mentioning any law that might or might not apply, I am only mentioning that it is possible that a large MRO could have to repair aircraft that had been damaged by wildlife and that it is possible that there could be remains, even if it is only bloody rags and feathers, that might need to be cleaned from said aircraft and possibly disposed of hygienically, in my personal opinion.
I am not saying whether I believe that this is what it was used for or not, I am just acknowledging that it is a possibility, so, please, don't everyone jump on me at once. I do not think that it is reasonable to reasonably assume that the purchase was unreasonable just because we do not personally know the reason for the purchase.
