The above is cited as a potential unintended consequence of legalizing roadkill salvage. Does anyone have a take on how likely that consequence would be to happen?
That said, I don't think that potential wiggle room poachers may try to exploit should be reason to keep salvaging illegal. The only time I have ever heard of a poacher making that excuse was in an askreddit thread (yeah I know take it with a grain of salt) about LEOs getting guns pulled on them. In that story the ranger could clearly tell the animal had been shot, not hit with a vehicle, and I would imagine in many other cases a ranger would be able to tell the difference too.
While no doubt an actual autopsy will often distinguish "run over and then shot" from "shot and then run over" (note that the bill allows "dispatching" animals that are wounded but not killed on the road, so there being a clear bullet/arrow/etc. wound, even if it can be established that it came from the person who collected it and not previously and non-fatally, is not determinative of a violation), its considerably costlier to distinguish violations from permitted conduct, which makes enforcement harder and promotes violations.
autopsy
Very probable, has happened yet. To fake a car kill is a well known alibi for crimes against endangered species like critically endangered Iberian lynx.
If people are allowed to retire the corpse and eat the animal, how the administration could look for evidence of illegal shooting or traps before the evidence is buried or eaten?. Anybody could just shoot, and then other people could use a SUV and have a free pass to violate any hunting law.
On the other hand, in most countries meat for human comsumption must be examinated by a licensed veterinary to avoid spreading diseases to cattle and people. Ill and confused animals are more prone to end as roadkills. Rabies, roundworms or Trichinose could increase amongst human population.