Some folks have no problem with cruelty to animals.
The bible tells them that we were put here to have "dominion" over all the other plants and animals.
Shame is, the folks that take this stuff seriously are also tricked into believing it is OK to domesticate the most valuable animal: humans.
Once domesticated (dominion established), then any treatment is justified.
Sadly, climate change and other human activities will kill far more animals (and humans) than guns or traps. Nature would have done it sooner or later anyway (dino-killers crop up every few million years, so we haven't got forever to get into space), but it is a bit sad to see such a smart species crap it's own nest to pieces so quickly.

For serious Star Trek fans like myself I can't help but compare the characters in the series in which the species the "Borg" travel through space in search of new land and technology to "assimilate into their collective" with that of the white invasion of Australia. They like the Borg were prepared to kill and exterminate other life forms in order to prosper their species in addition to terra forming other planets and the inhabitants land to achieve there goals of assimilation.

The similarities between the Borg and the English cannot be dismissed, both used their technical advancements against their less technical opposition. And both exterminated any opposition without mercy and were hated by their enemies, but of course the real difference is that one is fictional and the other a real serial pest.

The english Borgs, invaded two hundred years ago and assimilated over one hundred language groups before destroying the rest, after which they then terra formed Indigenous land whilst introducing serial pests like the cane toad, European carp,rabbits, New Zealanders,leigh and Andrew Bolt.

Its the white man's greed that is destroying the planet not Indigenous people's as you article contends, we neither have the technology or interest in destroying our land. Our religion is based in the land whilst the whites is based in the dollar that is the difference.

An accurate account by Mr Crook

And while many scientists are now saying that the dingo has much worth and can be of environmental benefit, we continue to poison these creatures with the heinous bait, 1080. One must also question the wisdom of using 1080 when our eco systems are so drastically threatened.

In addition, almost two-thirds of land in Australia has been modified for human uses, primarily grazing of natural vegetation.

Australia has the world's highest rate of native animal extinctions - more than all other countries combined, yet we continue on rampage, encroaching on native habitats and grazing millions of animals in preparation for live exports. In fact, we practically harvest anything that moves(providing it's profitable of course!) by transporting millions per annum of live sheep, cattle, goats, deer, camel etc to the lands of the barbarians.

Australia exports 80% of its agricultural products and we are now witnessing the alarming environmental and scientific evidence of overgrazing by livestock, the chemically laden crops which substitutes as animal feed and the resulting toxic state of our eco systems.

Ironically and despite the decades of rampant and inhumane slaughter, to rid Australia of feral animals, feral numbers appear to be on the increase. And man foolishly boasts that he has dominion over other species?

Are we incapable of realising that our avaricious and inhumane treatment of other species is simply leading to own demise?

Well stated Edgar. Copy of my response below to a newspaper article today on whaling, kangaroo culling and other animal industries:

Chris Kenny is right to highlight the hypocrisy of the response to the Japanese whale slaughter (The Advertiser, 20/2/08). However, to suggest that emotion should be removed from the argument in order to justify and protect our own animal slaughter industries is simplistic and barbaric. Emotional response to the pain and suffering of any animal, human or non-human, is completely appropriate and valid. A society that bases decisions purely on economic goals and selfish preferences is morally repugnant. In our wealthy Western societies, there are always more humane options available to protect crops, control populations, feed and clothe ourselves, and earn a living. We have the capacity to replace out-dated and cruel practices and industries with those that are more humane, healthy and environmentally progressive. Slaughter footage, whether of whales, cows, or kangaroos, does evoke an emotional response in most people - an inescapable fact. It is our higher intelligence and capacity for compassion that supposedly sets us apart from other species: one reason why an abattoir career is not one most people aspire to.

Humans have always put themselves first over animals but in reality we are all part of one big food chain. One of the most inhumane is live animal exports where they are subject to the most horrific conditions for some intangible made up human reasoning. Even in economic terms, the frozen meat trade is much more profitable for Australia than live animals and the practice should be banned.

As far as pests go, if the introduction of exotic species affects the survival of native animals is it morally sound to eradicate them and who makes the rules on what is morally acceptable or not? The effects of the cane toad is just as devastating as the effects of some weeds on our native forests. The decision in Canberra to cull kangaroos was to reduce numbers and hence competition for grasses during the drought to prevent death from starvation - which is a horrible way to die. A form of euthenasia if you like.

Does a whale have more rights than a gnat because research has proven that a whale is a sentient being, lives in families, high level communications and feels 'emotion'.

As a meat eating society, it goes follows that sheep and cattle are being killed so we can eat. If you feel strongly about how animals are killed you can always buy organic with a guarantee of humane killing methods. You can buy free range so that battery eggs become unviable. There are all sorts of things we can do to encourage humane practices.

Or you can become a vegetarian that will solve any moral dilemmas.

"As a meat eating society, it goes follows that sheep and cattle are being killed so we can eat."

Some good points there Pelican, however, the issue with grazing millions of sheep and cattle in this arid land is the problem of cloven hooves, a significant reason why our environment is now trashed.

Western Australia, (big sheep country) is estimated to contain about 75% of Australia's dryland salinisation problems. Land salinisation results in a rapid and catastrophic collapse of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Previous estimates indicate that up to 80% of bushland on farms and 50% of bushland on public lands in agricultural areas in WA will eventually be affected.

WA is now one of the planet's environmental hotspots and yet all exporters appear to be interested in is increasing live exports thus increasing stocking density. So the recipients of those exports may salivate over their meat kill, suppliers salivate over the profits but few ponder to assess how much those millions of heads of live exports per year are costing Australia (and beyond) in terms of ecological survival.

Vegetation cover in WA, which provides a protective cover for the land, has decreased in 34% of monitored regions alone, over the past decade.

I assure you, reducing ones consumption of meat is difficult. However, the land resource is fundamental for sustaining life and a healthy ecological system. Those fundamentals are now seriously threatened whilst our modern day Neros remain indifferent and continue to fiddle the cash registers during which time, other countries continue to question the morality of this nation.