I hope they can do something about the taste.I bought some kangaroo meat sausages once and the smell was so strong that i could not even cook them.Maybe the steaks are better.Very good idea if this problem can be addressed.

In the 40,000 years mentioned, there were no ‘Australian consumers’ and no Australia. Australia as an entity has existed for only 200 or so years.

I agree with haygirl. Kangaroo meat is all smell and no taste; dreadful muck, fit for pets only.

John Kelly’s summary of the fragile nature of our land is correct; we are overusing it, and calls for more food production are out of touch with reality.

But eating kangaroos – yuck!

The author clearly wants to sell kangaroo meat, but his industry will not get a red cent from me.

Disliking the strong taste must be one of those personal taste things like oysters. It's the preferred meat for three of my family. It also has the benefit of being very cheap. I'm hoping it doesn't become to popular and more expensive, though I think environmentally it's a better option so I shouldn't whinge if it happens.

I suspect there will be a few outraged posts on OL about eating our national emblem. The writers should visit the National Park near me in the grip of the drought. It might be a 'natural death' but there isn't anything beautiful about starving roos suffering. It's been great that some dingos have extended their range in our park to put a bit of balance back into the system.

I have tried kangaroo a number of times. On one occasion it was inedible and smelt appalling, however on all other occasions it was delicious. I suggest people try again if they have had one bad experience... cheers,

Kangaroo meet in the butcher shops a savior? Not likely.
While it has a lot of pluses, the failure is ecological.
Every tonne of Kangaroo carcass transported from the paddock depletes that paddock of several kilograms of plant-available phosphorus.
Of course that can be remedied – at the same price as for beef or lamb carcasses. Fertiliser problems will catch up with modern civilization eventually. Nauru, Western Sahara/(Morocco?) have propped it up very well so far – so far. And mining our, and the world’s, sewers will take a bit of energy.

Taste is a matter of culture, upbringing and personal perceptions. The (eye)dea of eating goat eyes bothers me but are a delicacy in some places. Even cute guinea pigs (cavy) are regularly eaten.
Ask an American about Vegemite and you get Yuk! Yet it has been a national staple for Aussie kids for yonks.
I agree ‘roo meat isn’t to everyone’s taste but as a green source of protein it’s ‘bonza mate’.
All the practical issues like price etc would be resolved if large scale farming were to happen. The only concern I have is that we don’t repeat the ostrich debacle, too many players too soon. Or it is marketed as a novelty item.
As a matter of conservation I would rather see a controlled ‘value added’ market than many of the environmentally destructive practiced at the moment.
Unfortunately many ill informed animal lovers liken the market to that of the disastrous and unsustainable“bush meat” trade in poor countries.
Farming say elephants is uneconomical for many reasons including birth and maturity rates etc making it basically unsustainaple.
Conversly kangaroo’s breeding is largely determined by feed availability and their time to mature is much less. As a consequence extinction in a controlled market highly unlikely.In the wild boom breeding this way often means leaving too many adults in bad times to decimate greenery already threatened by cattle sheep. Keep in mind also ‘roos don’t eat fodder to the roots like most hooved animals.
Additionally ‘roos don’t follow regular tracks as such unlike cloven animals that causes soil compadtion, plant loss(except for introduced fast growing weeds)and increases erosion. Stock actually cases many environental problems.
In short ‘roo meat is an excellent potential mass food source in AUSTRALIA where it suits the environment. Over coming the "fluffy yuk reservations" is only a matter of time, presentation and education. Sooner or later with climate change we will have to consider the option seriously. Why not now?
In the interest of complete disclosure I am a volunteer bushcarer, wildlife rescuer and keen environmentalist.

Roo meat is cheaper. Better for you. Better for the environment. Has the most humane methods of butchering than traditional meats.

The taste is a matter of taste. As far as I'm concerned cow meat is only fit for pets and tastes like fatty vomit. But each to their own.

Colinsett. Everything we do takes scant resources from the soil. I'm not going to stop eating because of it. Lucky for me my meat of choice is the most efficient method of using said resources.

'Sustainable harvesting' of kangaroos is a contradiction in terms. It is both controversial and deeply problematic for mainstream environmentalists and totally unacceptable to animal liberationists such as myself.The truth is kangaroo 'harvesting' is not and never has been, a sustainable industry. For one thing shooters aim for the biggest and fittest animals, the reverse of evolutionary pressure which keeps the species fit and healthy by selecting the old, the sick and the weak.After years of exploitation by this rapacious industry the kangaroo population has been weakened to the extent that it is now rare to find a fully developed male kangaroo.

John Kelly claims the kangaroo industry is highly regulated when in fact mere 'guesstimates' form the basis for annual kill quotas. The Code of Practice stipulates that kangaroos must be killed with a single shot to the head. However, this is a voluntary code. Supposing it were otherwise, kangaroos would continue to be shot in the mouth, limbs, or stomach by unsupervised, weary shooters in outback areas. Little or no monitoring or policing in the field, or at the point of kill, is undertaken.

The industry is neither humane, environmentally friendly nor a potential high contributor to the national economy. It should be shut down immediately, the sooner the better.

Kelly and his industry are to be congratulated.

Unlike farms, indigenous food harvesting does not involve destruction of flora and fauna; does not cause soil damage from land-clearing and ploughing; and because fertiliser is not required, water tables, creeks, lakes and oceans are not polluted with NPK chemicals. Moreover, in regions where highly destructive burn-offs create green pick for cattle in the dry season; these would no longer be required, especially if we replace cattle with buffalo.

Aboriginal communities that lack enterprise opportunities; would gain genuine economic independence.

Kangaroo and wallaby meat are highly susceptible to environmental influences; seasonal and immediate (in fact all meat is); and to wet season worm infestation in the meat. Secondly, marsupial meat needs to be cooked differently to beef, pork and lamb.

Perhaps of some interest wild food enthuisiasts, I operated a safari in Kakadu, featuring Buffalo Fillet; cooked fast, thin and frozen on a butter-greased plate, heated to smoke temperature. The many European chefs who were my 5000 or so clients joined their traveller mates in proclaiming buffalo to be the nicest meat they had eaten. This included avowed vegetarians, who otherwise avoided meat purely because of the hormones, antibiotics, animal protein and other toxins and hazards added to European-accessed meats.

I mention this because there will eventually be a recognition of the value of Oz Indigenous meats in Europe and elsewhere; which we should be careful to regulate now. If we do not, then prices will rise to meet that market and Aussies will not be able to afford it.

True story "If it not been for Lulu alerting my wife to my plight, I might not be here today. I had been knocked unconscious by a falling tree branch following a storm, I lay unconscious, Lulu the kangaroo stood over me, with her big hind legs at my back ‘barking’ like a dog for help. My wife called an ambulance and I was airlifted to Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital Trauma Centre where I was
treated for head injuries. Lulu’s courage made headlines around the world and Lulu became a kangaroo heroine. It made Media news Internationally, Lulu’s amazing act of
love, intuition and courage was rewarded by an RSPCA NATIONAL ANIMAL VALOUR AWARD, the first native animal in the world to
receive such an honour.. Having raised her from the time my son found her, I have known that Lulu was and still is very smart. She opens our back door, comes into our house and lays around the
open fire with the rest of the family. To catch her taking fruit from the fruit bowl, going to the pantry to help herself to whatever takes
her fancy, is truly amazing. When she has filled her belly she goes back outside and hops into her own bed which we set up for her, near our dog, for a siesta. Lulu is a wild kangaroo, and is free to leave us whenever she chooses. It does show that kangaroos are smart and with a little love and kindness they will respond in a way that will surprise you. We have not seen any kangaroos in our area since the cull, which was not long after Lulu
had saved my life. Permits ‘fast tracked’ by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment Wildlife Authorities to kill kangaroos in our area, has left their populations Eastern grey
decimated, with few left anywhere, to be seen. Victoria’s La Trobe Valley Councilors promised they would investigate providing safe habitat, in continuous, connecting safe wildlife areas to
keep kangaroos free from shooters, sadly, it is now forgotten and the promise has not been forthcoming.

MaggieS. You have been misinformed.

Loss of genotypes through shooting of larger animals assumes the larger animals have not yet successfully procreated.
Having said this I would like to know where your misinformation, regarding the lack of fully formed male Kangaroos, comes from.

Commercial roo culling is heavily monitored.
In NSW in 2001 there was an average of 5.6 inspections per day made by Safe Food NSW alone. This does not include inspections made by NSWNPWS officers and RSPCA officers.
It varies from state to state but some hand out fines for carcasses with body shots.
Commercial Kangaroo culling is humane, environmentally friendly and should be encouraged.

If there is pressure on our fragile arid range lands it is man made.
Over the last 10 years, 30 million kangaroos were slaughtered and 3 million joeys bashed or abandoned to a cruel death. Shooting of the largest and fittest kangaroos has raised concerns about loss of natural selection processes, and already there is evidence of declining genetic strength in kangaroo populations. Kangaroos are affected by drought, bush fires, loss of habitat and, with the impact of the kangaroo meat industry, loss of genetic strength. The kangaroo meat industry wants authorities to lower the weight limit because they can’t find kangaroos large enough to kill. Lowering the limit, combined with an increase in quotas to meet consumer demand, might be the first steps along the road to extinction. What will happen then to the 4000 jobs?
If the kangaroo industry “is a tightly regulated industry.”, who monitors these “assessed, licensed shooters” out there in the “outback” at night? Australians are good shots with firearms, but they do miss occasionally, and many kangaroos each night are shot in the leg or arm , in the chest, eye or ear and are able to get away to die a cruel slow death. Joeys are ripped from their mother’s pouches and stamped on or have their heads bashed in. Joeys still at foot, and dependent upon their mothers, hop off into the night to call for their mothers for days until they too perish slowly from starvation, stress and predation. Other meat industries would never be permitted to operate in this manner.
Other meat industries have stringent health regulations and standards none of which are met in the case of bush-killed kangaroos.
Before we decide to believe John Kelly that kangaroo meat is “designed for our times”, let us look to the future and think what this will really mean to our biodiversity, environment and our health, if we start to eat our own wildlife. Let the voice of those people who have no vested interest be heard and let there be independent research done before we tread this road.

There is roo meat in my pot once or twice a week.

If you don't like the flavour you can get marinated packages in the supermarket. Another trick is to slice thick pieces in half so they cook more quickly and evenly, the rare bits have the strongest flavour.

Note that you (non vegitarians) only need to eat 150g of meat a day, that is quite a small piece. If you eat a slab the size of a rump steak it may well be overpowering.

I much prefer the steaks and roasts to the sausages.

About the environmental impact. Surely we must be able to support a roo industry if we removed some of the sheep and cattle from our farms and stations.

Predictable tiresome responses from the "animal rights brigade" (many of whom appear to be vegetarians). The overseas "libbers" are simply crazy, and claims of the imminent demise of kangaroos is laughable once one spends some time in the bush. Improved pastures and added watering points have led to explosions in roo populations in some areas.

I've wondered for years why more effort wasn't put into controlling kangaroo numbers by eating them. It's good to see roo meat more commonly available on supermarket shelves, although it's not at all cheap in the remote town I live in, which is literally overrun with roos but there is no roo shooting locally (much of the immediate area is National Park).

A great many roos around my town are killed on the road. This keeps the panel beater in business.

My experiences with roo meat have been mixed. Some I have shot and dressed myself have been delicious while bought meat can be very gamey. Hunters after their own meat steer clear of "big bucks" as they are the gamiest (the same with billygoats, the meat is rank in proportion to their stench). Roo steak in a restaurant once was fabulous. Smallgoods made from roo are also nice although fat has to be added since it's so lean.

It is as always predictable that the people who oppose the kangaroo meat industry or a kangaroo cull are labelled as "vegetarians", "misinformed" or "greenies". Where do the people who agree with eating kangaroo meat or think we have an overpopulation of kangaroos that need to be culled, get their expert information from? Is it perhaps from the media? Maybe it is from the research they themselves have done? Is it from independent experts who have done years of research into these matters and have published their findings? Or is it just their opinion?
Why are they the only ones that seem to think they have an informed opinion?
I also live in the bush. The area I live in, though affected by drought, is still lush and green, has plenty of water, lots of grassy paddocks with many cows and bush not yet affected by urban sprawl and massive clearing. I do not see thousands or even hundreds of kangaroos in the fields or killed on the roads. In fact my husband has to slash our cleared areas a couple of times a year to keep the pasture down. Where is this overpopulation? Could it be in areas where there are localized concentrations which may be due to:
- a seasonal plentiful food supply
- loss of habitat due to bush fires, urban sprawl or habitat destruction by man, including overgrazing
- a supply of pasture that can be found in drought areas beside roads
- being fenced in by man-made structures with no management plans or wildlife corridors to allow for natural movements of mobs which they do to avoid over grazing any particular area?

We need to look at the bigger picture and realise that simply eating our wildlife will not feed our "overpopulation" because we do not have sufficient numbers of them to supply demand without wiping them off the face of the earth. So, independent research should first be done before we come to any "informed" decisions.

I would like to respond to John Kelly's article.
Mr Kelly;you may have a great majority of the Australian public fooled with the propaganda from the Australian Kangaroo Industry but some of us thankfully are a lot wiser!
I think you are fully aware as to why Victoria does not have a commercial kangaroo industry. It has been proven over and over again to be completely unsustainable.The reason the AKI is pushing so hard to start the industry here in Victoria is simply because you are unable to sustain it in NSW.We all know shooters are paid by the kilo.Tell me why then there are a number of areas where so called harvesting occurs where the average age of the kangaroos are two years old or less.I think you know it because the larger animals have just about been wiped out.Highly sustainable is it?
Tightly regulated? I beg to differ. I have seen some of these "tightly regulated" so called humane kills! Are you trying to tell me all these animals are killed instantly? Please do not insult my intelligence any further.I challenge any of the forum readers to attend a nights shooting and actually see for themselves what is involved in this digusting industry.What about all the joeys at foot that are left to slowly starve to death or are predated upon by foxes and dogs.Are you seriously trying to tell us that all these joeys are humanely dealt with? As for the pouched young;apparently the AKI find it acceptable to smash their head in or stomp on the joey.Is a humane death?
In regard to kangaroo being a healthy meat,one would have to have their head in the sand not to realise how contminated the carcasses are that are shot in the field and brought back to the chillers. I see you failed to mention the risk of toxoplasmosis as well.
Come on Australia it is time to wake up and stop believing the lies from the AKI.By the way yes I am a vegetarian and for a dam good reason.

I often form opinions from scientists of note.

In this case, I would defer to the former head of Zoology at the University of Queensland, Professor Gordon Grigg.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:8969/Chapter26.pdf

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:10246/gg_new_mil_kang.pdf

macropodlady, I usualy defer to govt publications for my information. They are the ones responsible for the allocating of quota, issuing of tags, and the ones that actually put people up in aeroplanes to establish numbers, and food supplies. https://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/native_animals/permits_and_licences/kangaroo_harvesting/

My general impression of parks and wildlife employees is that they are very officious in their protection of wildlife and habitat, and would not authorise culling for any other reason than that protection.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangaroo/pubs/2007-commercial-harvest-quotas.pdf
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/kangaroo5yr.html

Greenies actually support roo harvest it seems, greenpeace (supported by some on this forum for their integrity) reportedly support and encourage roo consumption.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22562480-662,00.html

"Where is this overpopulation?" Exactly, it doesn't exist partly because of judicious and planned culling. The alternative question is where isn't the purported underpopulation?

I enjoy kangaroo in all its forms. It is a strong, gamey meat, like venison but I do not find it too smelly as some posters have observed.

MaggieS” It is both controversial and deeply problematic for mainstream environmentalists and totally unacceptable to animal liberationists such as myself.”

Who cares, the thing is what you “mainstream environmentalists” and “animal liberationists” do not understand is, relative to the entire population, you are not mainstream at all

Now I respect your right not to eat meat but this little mainstream meat eater expects you to respect my right to enjoy Skippy as sausage, burger, steak, roast and mince, not to the exclusion of Percy pig, Larry the lamb, Clarissa the cow, Henrietta the hen and of course good old Donald duck

“It should be shut down immediately, the sooner the better.”

That just ain’t gonna happen

and even if you try a program “civil disobedience” (like other criminal actions normally associated with so called ‘animal liberationists’), you will find a lot of people like me can be quite “disobedient” too and not averse to inflicting some 'retribution'.

Koalagirl “By the way yes I am a vegetarian and for a dam good reason.”

I am a meat eater for a lot of good reasons too, not least, I like the taste.

You are entitled to be a vegetarian and I am entitled not to be so.

We will get along fine unless you try to impose your view on me.

For goodness sake vegos and animal liberationists! ’roo meat DOESN'T necessarily mean indiscriminate culling. There is such a thing as farming the critters like cloven hooved animals only with less damage to the environment.
As for where is the overpopulation? Strewth! Ask any grazier what happens after a big rain and the fodder starts to regrow. A virtual plague‘roos can control their foetal development for just such times.
Australia being what it is (and will be more so with climate change), after a time of plenty comes the dry again. The realistic result is (nature unintended) unsustainable competition for food with and without stock creating (unnecessary) animal suffering.
Comparing kangaroo numbers with pre settlement is absurd reality dictates there is just not the room available to sustain those numbers. We have irrevocably changed the environment the trick is not making it worse.
Love the cuddlies is one thing but simply look at the man made disaster of uncontrolled koala numbers on Kangaroo Island.
Another reality is that MOST people eat meat therefore the sensible decision is ‘what is the most appropriate food animal to stock?’. Cloven hooved animals and their farming HAS caused environmental damage so it seems logical to exploit that which is less so eg native animals. Aust top soil is inches thick on average not meters like Europe and prior to whitey there were NO cloven hooves here (nature deigned our fauna to suit).
Previously I emphasised that ‘roos are appropriate for Aust and maybe not elsewhere.
The only other solution is to look a 21st century civilization and populations (fat chance of that). Idealism is desirable as is development but excesses in either is counter productive.
We can have an acceptable environment and the 21st century but we must be intelligent about it not excessively emotional.

Grey kangaroos begin to leave the pouch at around 6 months of age. They weigh around 1.5kgs when they first venture out - and they are dependant on their mums until they are 18 months old. Red Kangaroos leave their mums pouch at an earlier age - and are dependant on their mums until they are 12 months old. If mum is killed while her joey is out of the pouch - then that joey WILL suffer a very long, very frightening, and very distressing death... There is no possibility that such a joey will survive unless someone finds them and hands them in. But even then, in WA, it is illegal to rehabilitate a joey who's mum has been culled.
I have been looking after such joeys for 8 years - and when you hold them in your arms, when you understand their terror and their grief....maybe only then, you will understand that the kangaroo meat industry is an appalling indictment on the morals of kangaroo cullers and the people who eat kangaroo meat.

Yes rojo, I have read those government publications and others as well.
However, I don't believe everything the government tells me and I investigate further. Some sites that might be of interest to you are:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92habitat.html
http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/kangaroos-hoser.html
http://www.awpc.org.au/kangaroos/book_files/preservationofourmacropods.htm

For another perspective by people and scientists that will not make any money from kangaroos or need political votes try:
http://www.wildlifeprotectaust.org.au
http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com

Books worth reading:
Kangaroos Myths and Realities by Maryland Wilson & David E Croft
Silencing Dissent - How the Australian Government is controlling public opinion and stifling debate by Clive Hamilton & Sarah Maddison

And for Bugsy- As well as the above you might be interested in another scientists view of what we can do with our kangaroos:

http://www.wildlifetourism.org.au/downloads/2006_awtc_abstracts.pdf
http://www.crctourism.com.au/CRCBookshop/Documents/16croftdoc3.pdf

The way that Kangas are slaughtered and transported makes them unsuitable for eating. I have tried with my pets on roo meat, it was so high in protein that their kidneys failed. I am now a wildlife carer (not for roos) but I am aware of how much energy people put into raising them and how intelligent and lovely they are. They are VERY social animals with complex family relationships.
I have to mention that they are not breeding much this season. Perhaps culling has sent them a message.
Let us not lose our national icon.
If you think I am a nutter you should google what happened to the passenger pigeon. Ecology is complex and fragile. People are out there trying with hands tied by bureacracy. Wildlife carers are volunteers - we can advocate for animals but at the end of the day we are just doing triage in a war zone.

There's an old Australian stockman, lying, dying,
and he gets himself up on one elbow,
and he turns to his mates,
who are gathered 'round him and he says:

Watch me wallabys feed mate.
Watch me wallabys feed.
They're a dangerous breed mate.
So watch me wallabys feed.
Altogether now!

Tie me kangaroo down sport,
tie me kangaroo down.
Tie me kangaroo down sport,
tie me kangaroo down.

Keep me cockatoo cool, Curl,
keep me cockatoo cool.
Don't go acting the fool, Curl,
just keep me cockatoo cool.
Altogether now!

Take me koala back, Jack,
take me koala back.
He lives somewhere out on the track, Mac,
so take me koala back.
Altogether now!

Let me # go loose, Lou,*
let me # go loose.
They're of no further use, Lou,
so let me # go loose.
Altogether now!

Mind me platypus duck, Bill,
mind me platypus duck.
Don't let him go running amok, Bill,
mind me platypus duck.
Altogether now!

Play your digeridoo, Blue,
play your digeridoo.
Keep playing 'til I shoot thro' Blue,
play your digerydoo.
Altogether now!

Tan me hide when I'm dead, Fred,
tan me hide when I'm dead.
So we tanned his hide when he died Clyde,
(Spoken) And that's it hanging on the shed.
Altogether now!

Near Perth, WA, there is a meat processing plant which processes kangaroo carcasses. Several years ago a fellow wildlife carer was called to rescue a Red Kangaroo joey who was found near that plant. Because Red Kangaroo's do not live around the Perth area, it was assumed that the joey was in the pouch of his dead mum for goodness knows how many days - before he escaped when his mum was moved from the truck to the prosessing plant..Within 3o minutes of the joey getting to his human carer he died of stress myopathy - a death which is very painful and very distressing to witness. Who cannot be horrified by stories such at this??

Possum Magic "Who cannot be horrified by stories such at this"

ever seen a weak roo killed by a dingo?

or baby sheep dying with their eyes pecked out by crows or simply rejected by their mother?

S-hit happens.

the natural world is an uncaring place.

btw "sentimentality" is no basis of a decision, although it is often used by those who lack real reasons.

I think that all of you that eat kangaroo meat should choke on it.Besides being our national emblem they are living creatures that deserve a decent life. It is us humans who think that we have the right to kill and yet we destroy our environment without a thought to
any other living creature. Think again, I am a vegetarian and keep very healthy without eating any sort of meat which by the way is usually full of chemicals Isn't it tragic enough we cull these beautiful creatures without eating them as well

Michele
Oakleigh

Interesting polarization of views. My 2-cents worth:

1. It does taste pretty revolting, - an acquired taste (why bother?)

2. Known health risks from undercooked meat from wild animals with intestinal parastites. Again, why bother? Try puffer-fish instead.

3. Known health risks for dogs - greyhound trainers avoid it because of thiamine deficiency as a result. Why eat something not fit for dogs? Almost all roo meat is pet food. Why is that?

4. This leaves skins - which look better on the animal than in boots or testicle pouches for tourists.

5. How many dependent joeys die as a result of shot mothers? No-one even bothers to count them. Would this cruelty be tolerated in any other livestock industry? Surely compassion is not totally unknown among meat-eaters!

6. Farming, as suggested by 'examinator' just isn't possible with kangaroos. If he really was a 'wildlife rescuer' as claimed, he'd know this. If possible it would have been tried.

7. Do we really need to exploit every species and habitat on the planet? Can't we leave some safe from human greed?

8. This looks like another attempt by John Kelly to extend his small empire into Tasmania and Victoria. I don't trust empire-builders - they often have blood on their hands. Roo blood isn't a good look John.

A few points that John Kelly omitted from his article:

X amount of meat in the numbers needed to equal the production of the present consumption will create roughly X amount of damage no matter what the animal is. In equivalence there are many times more sheep and cattle than kangaroos and if the introduced creatures were removed by attrition or whatever, and somehow the kangaroo numbers increased to fill their place, the environmental benefits would be nil to negligible. As kangaroos are not now and cannot be farmed, the method to increase their number to this extent is an unknown.

Kangaroo numbers at present are kept at a sufficient level to shoot because the alpha males are the primary targets and without their control, younger males become rampant rapists. There is no evidence to suggest that the cessation of shooting would have kangaroo’s two metres deep all over Australia. Kangaroos only extend their capacity to survive in situations of limited area such as on islands, fenced army bases or where escape corridors are non-existent.

The shooting of kangaroos brings with it a wounding rate depending on the skill of the shooter and the flightiness of the animal. As the procedure to obtain a commercial shooting licence is dumbed-down and not reflective of actual shooting conditions, the wounding rate is high.

Others have mentioned the killing of in-pouch joeys, which is in the millions per year. The other factor is the at-foot-joey. They are dependent for milk from a special teat, on the protection from predators and have a long period of learning where to go and what to do to survive. The loss of the mother destroys all of that and the joey’s chance of living for more than a few days or weeks, in a terrified manner is near zero. Other kangaroos do not adopt orphans as a rule.

(Continued next post)

Johathon

If meat from domestic animals was obtained by shooting at night from a distance with the inherent wounding, the killing of some dependent offspring by bludgeoning and allowing other young to die of predation, starvation or fear, those animals would be off most people’s menu.

As pointed out, nature is cruel, but that is not an excuse for us to imitate it. In fact, animal protection legislation increases by the year as a result of the growing awareness of human ethical responsibility to other creatures.

John Kelly failed also to mention that by keeping the killing of kangaroos as a good thing to do, it encourages the redneck element in society to shoot kangaroos for ‘sport’. Sometimes this comes in the name of overcoming boredom or as a pastime to embrace when there have been a few beers under the belt. This kind of behaviour, as well as being illegal, is rampant all over Australia.

The commercial killing of kangaroos is a throwback to an era where other animals were classified as inanimate objects. We are living in an age where domination of the environment and all within has brought us to the brink of extinction. This industry with its inescapable cruelty and nil ecological benefits should be shut down.

Johatho

Large variations in our kangaroo population are bound to occur.

We need to manage their populations. In a world where supply of food can be scarce, then, we have an obligation to use kangaroo products sensibly. It is so easy to sit back in suburbia and lambast those roo harvesters and the people making a living from this industry. But as Eric Bogle reminds us that "there's no drought or starving stock on a sewered suburban block".

Well thanks to John Kelly for fueling an interesting debate of the Kangaroo meat industry and his push for increased consumption of roo meat.. I would like to see John Kelly respond to the many criticisms of his industry raised by readers in this column.

Chief amongst these would be allegations of involvement by an underworld criminal-element in the wholesale trade in Kangaroo meat, and charges of intimidation by national parks and wildlife management in their alleged attempts to silence high ranking corruption in their own ranks associated with the wholesale trade in kangaroo meat. Not to mention the suspicion of three murders of wholesalers associated with “muscling” for available turf as the roo meat trade gathers importance. ($200million dollars annually).

I also noticed with amusement John Kelly’s attempts to distance himself from the pastoral industry (and as a consequence the National party); but that is another story on which he may wish to elaborate.

Eating kangaroos in replacement for cattle is not a viable option! Nor is continuing to eat cattle. The only environmentally and animal welfare friendly option is veganism.

Kangaroo meat isn't as glossy as was made out in the article. kangaroo meat is associated with high numbers of bacteria and then a huge amount of chemical preservatives to overcome this. there is nothing natural about kangaroo meat.

The kangaroo industry is not sustainable. there are areas across australia where kangaroos are no longer found due to this industry. kangaroos are being killed faster than they can breed. they have a very bleak future and as the figures are currently showing they will istinct within 15-20 years. Also, this industry is completely inhumane with babies being smashed up against rocks or left to die of stravation when their mum is shot. This must be stopped ... to think the eating of kangaroo meat is being promoted is not only sad but very scary.

Facts about the kangaroo industry should be exposed.

please read the book 'Kangaroos Myths and Realities' by Maryland Wilson & David E Croft.

check out these websites:
http://www.wildlifeprotectaust.org.au
http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com

Coms “The only environmentally and animal welfare friendly option is veganism.”

That is your opinion, an extreme view and one not shared or supported by the vast majority of people. The point with animal protein is: you have evolved from generations of people who included meat in their diet. Had they not eaten meat, your brain would not have developed to the capacity it is.

I wonder how many generations of ‘veganism’ it would take before intellectual ability regressed closer to that of a vegetable?

“kangaroo meat is associated with high numbers of bacteria”

And that is why we cook it, like many things, cooking is a recognised and accepted as an effective anti-bacterial process.

“then a huge amount of chemical preservatives to overcome this.”

I am not sure how this can be implied, I am open to hear your suggestion before I shoot it down.

btw CO2 is a common natural preservative which is used in any number of things from meat to donuts, gassing it into a container replaces the oxygen, necessary to sustain bacteria. Salt and vinegar are common chemical preservatives too and have been around for centuries.

“there are areas across australia where kangaroos are no longer found due to this industry.”

Maybe you could identify them and I will check it out. I do note the roo in the wild, generally modifies its numbers in accordance with available food resources. I do note roos are not particularly territorial and do travel across distance to seek new food and water sources, so any place where they are “no longer found” is likely to be repopulated within a short time, provided it can support roos with migrants from areas which it borders.

Vegan-ism is nice emotionally, superficially. It is not so good when driving through horizon-to-horizon monocultures of grain: the biodiversity of the original landscape denuded, much more than by grazing animals, to enable more human sardines to be squeezed into the sardine tin of a finite planet. All at the expense of what fundamentally we depend upon.
I’ve had friendship with the free-wandering ‘roo, and with a similar cow or two. I eat them, too.
It’s a numbers game – for humans and other animals. Where there is no excess, in either, reasonable and satisfying lifestyles are possible all round. It has to be in accordance with climates, landscapes, and the evolutionary development of normal diets.

Such an interesting debate where there does not seem to be a middle ground.

One point no-one has mentioned is how the rest of the world sees us:

We try (ineffectively) to stand up to the Japanese whaling industry, protesting that it is - exploitation of wild creatures, inherently cruel, and based on spurious arguments.
Many of us object to the slaughter of young seals in Canada for pretty much the same reasons. We also try to agitate about the threats to many threatened species such as orang-utans. Why?

Isn't the massacre of millions of our macropods each year - either by licensed shooters or Government-authorised 'culls' just as bad? It is the exploitation of wild creatures for skins and pet food; it is appallingly cruel - not for those that are gutshot and left to die but for the dependent joeys left to die; and it is absolutely not necessary. Destruction of wildlife is not needed in good farming practice. The arguments put up are usually trivial or even false - just excuses rather than reasons.

Doesn't this make us Aussies look quite hypocritical? How dare we condemn the Japanese or Canadian fishermen when our governments permit slaughter on a far wider scale.

Remember the old adage: "if it moves, shoot it. If it doesn't, cut it down". I really doubt if attitudes have changed much.

miss_allaneous,

I think you have missed the point. We do not need to manage kangaroo populations except in certain unusual circumstances. Even the government doesn’t maintain that kangaroos are pests in the main areas of commercial kangaroo killing.

The scarcity of food in the world is very poor reasoning to justify overt cruelty. Why not process our pets to supply meat to feed starving people. Surely, people are far more important than pets. Let’s classify them as you have kangaroos, as ‘pet products’ and use them “sensibly”. If we really were serious about increasing food production for the world, we would not be wasting it on feeding animals to feed us. However, that is another subject, for another thread, and feeding a hungry world is a red herring in this matter.

It is an erroneous presumptuous of yours to assume that I am sitting on a suburban block and have no inner knowledge of the kangaroo killing industry.

I am not lambasting commercial kangaroo shooters. Circumstances make humans do things they mightn’t normally do. Most kangaroo shooters see first hand the cruelty involved but they have to ignore it or stop shooting. It is easy for a shooter to justify their actions because that is human nature. (The process involves a desensitizing to the suffering caused using any reason available, no matter how trivial or even fallacious)

Earning a living is one such justification, or we have to manage their populations etc as you say. History is full of justifications leading to behaviour, even to other humans, later rejected as being ethically dubious.

If I am having a go at anyone, it is the government that allows this industry to continue, and which is complicit in keeping the full facts from the public.

Really! using Eric Bogle as a guide to living, check out this little piece of lyrical charm, tolerance and level-headed thinking? http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=58395

“Cause I hate Wogs, they live like dogs
Some eat bananas and some eat frogs
Some wear turbans some wear clogs
All the bloody same to me 'cause I hate Wogs.”

Jonatho

Hmm.

For those who compared the roo cull to whaling, I'd make the point that roo numbers aren't threatened or endangered.

That's why they're identified as 'pests.' I've heard the conspiracy theories saying that they're really endangered, but the thing is, nobody with any credibility agrees. The top scientists, government figures, farmers and yes, those working in agencies such as the EPA, RSPCA and assorted state agencies such as DNR and DPI know this. Bugsy has already shown a link from a credible source indicating this.

We cull more than a million roos each year in Queensland alone. Wouldn't 'waste not, want not' be a simple enough statement here?

For those who make emotional arguments about killing and death, I'd point out Col Rouge's argument - that it occurs in the wild regardless, and it is often cruel.
Unless you're also opposing our right to eat, say, lamb, then your position is inconsistent.

If you are opposing our right to eat lamb, then I'd be very angry that you think you have the right to dictate to other omnivores what they may or may not eat.

I'd ask this simple question - wouldn't farming of a native species be preferable to farming imported species, that aren't as suited to our land?

This is the central question here, but it's being drowned out by a great deal of emotive rhetoric.

So I'll ask again - who here is honestly saying they prefer the farming of conventional livestock, over the farming of kangaroos?

If it's nobody, then I'm declaring this argument already won. You can make your argument against meat-eating or farming in general all you want, but that's a different debate. Making it here, damages a push for something which would be an improvement on the status quo - ultimately, the author's suggestions would improve the environment and make commercial gains from what is regarded as a pest species. In fact, to be brutally pragmatic, if those opposing this can acknowledge that roo farming is preferable to livestock farming, then they are being environmentally irresponsible by obstructing it.

Throwing a little petrol on the fire here but...

Really what's the difference between a roo and a dirty great feral pig? Both in excessive numbers degrade the environment to other species, (plant and animals) disadavantage. Animal liberationists come out hard on roos and brumbies, but don't show the same concern for the less fuffy, but probably more intelligent species.

Roos have been predated on by humans for at least 50 thousand years and unlike the mega fauna have successfully survived - they are in no danger of extinction now.

Nobody likes to kill animals but nature isn't a picnic either. When a roo dies in the wild, angels don't sing it into heaven. It's likely to die (if it's unlucky enough not to be taken by a predator), isolated, mange ridden, parasite infested, and suffer for a week kicking quietly in its own faeces - sorry about the imagery but nature isn't kind either.

Also animal libertonists by their own behaviour damn themselves. People in support of the roo cull in Canberra held a barbie where they threw roo on the barbie. Provocative yes, but the Liberatationists response was to film them.

It completely lost un-involved people like me who saw staff from an Embassy similarly film an ethnic group that their military had just massacred, at a protest in Canberra. You can't expect people to come on board if you practice intimidation against people with opposing views. Some of the counter arguments on this forum are vague insinuations and 'playing' the author. Come out with the hard facts. Also don't claim ownership of the mainstream environment movement, it's not with you.

Its been an interesting exercise on this forum to read all the posts by the kangaroo shooters and Industry proponents, all trotting out the same tired old arguments that have long been disproven.

One of the silliest is the comment " So I'll ask again - who here is honestly saying they prefer the farming of conventional livestock, over the farming of kangaroos?"

Well buddy I am. There are plenty farmers who farm on suitable land, who dont shoot the kangaroos, who look after their farms, do not overgraze, and replant erosion areas, ....and they are doing quite nicely too. The issue is wether anyone should be trying to farm on marginal arid and semiarid land in the first place...thats the issue!

I farmed just like that for years, made a lot of money and am now comfortabley retired.....and I never shot a kangaroo.......

paddy, with all due respect, you haven't explained why it's silly at all.

If you're going to call it 'silly' then perhaps you need to explain more reasoning, as to why you believe an animal that has conventionally been farmed in a european climate and requires a much higher amount of grass and water, is more practical than one that has been grazing on Australian soil for hundreds of years.

Until then, I may as well just shoot the word 'silly' right back atcha.

some responses to points made on this forum:

Paddy, i have much respect for a farmer who has never killed a kangaroo and was successful. however, the arguement between cattle or roos for meat should not happen. The ONLY environmentally friendly option is veganism. The only living species that requires meat belong to the feline family. For survival in other species meat may be required. however, for man today veganism is a viable option. man can maintain balanced diets without meat and continue to thrive intellectually.

turnrightturnleft, kangaroo numbers are declining rapidily ... if you believe governement figures then i will ask you to consider the fact that australia has the worst record of extinct species in the world. Maybe believing the organisations that work with the animals is they way to go?

JD Deland, you clearly have no respect for life, life of any kind.

finally, kangaroos are not a pest. they should have the right to fulfil thier life on their native land. it is man that is the pest by not considering how to live harmonously with native animals.

Kangaroo meat is not a substitute for other meat. Besides the ethical objections to the large-scale killing of native animals and the cruelty involved in killing kangaroos (and especially the joeys), the small amount of usable meat on an individual means that kangaroos can never be a significant source of meat. Kangaroos cannot be farmed.

Hunting kills the largest and best-adapted individuals and causes negative selection of the species. Killing large numbers of kangaroos destroys the social structure of the group. Humans have shown that they cannot hunt animals sustainably as is seen by the overfishing of world oceans. Although the human population of Australia appears to be relatively low, how is it that so much forests have been destroyed in little over 200 years?

Australia (and America) have the worst record in the world when it comes to the extermination of species, logging of forests, oppression of indigenous people, consumption of fossil fuels and (per capita) generation of waste. Since I refuse to live in such a country, I returned to my country of origin, Croatia, in 1992 and encourage others to do the same.

The issue that Aboriginals killed kangaroos is no excuse since the present human population of Australia is about 100 times its number before the white colonization of Australia. A lot of Aboriginals are against the killing of kangaroos as was shown by those that protested at Belconnen.

Less low-density housing and greater reliance on public transport would eliminate the need to expand into natural ecosystems. It takes much less land to produce vegan food than meat (per capita). The issue that plant agriculture destroys ecosystems more than animal farming can be solved by growing organic crops and smaller, more diverse farms. A lot of vegan foods (with common exceptions being potatoes, onions and leafy greens) do not involve killing the plant!

Hopefully, high fuel prices will make commercial hunting and fishing less economic, and high grain prices will make animal farming less economic; and European countries will ban the import of kangaroo meat and skin just as they banned seal products from Canada.

Coms “for man today veganism is a viable option. man can maintain balanced diets without meat and continue to thrive intellectually.”

What may be a “viable option” may not be adopted because it is not a preferred choice.

The difference between “Life” and “Existence” –
Existence is defined by the viable options available but “Life” is defined by the choices we make.

As for viable options, because I earn the money I use to buy my groceries I can afford to buy the meat I eat, that is a viable option and it is also a choice I have decided to make.

Coms I challenged your previous post but yoyu have conveniently failed to respond – were the issues too confronting for you to consider? Maybe the dietary consequences of veganism have already started to negatively effect your reasoning prowess?

Simon Validzic “Besides the ethical objections large-scale killing of native animals and the cruelty involved in killing kangaroos”

I have no ethical objection to killing kangaroos or farming them for meat and if you want to see cruelty, just look at nature, lots of what you would call “cruelty”, without restraint.

I would note “Sentimentality” is no substitute for reason or ethics, it is just the warm cuddly feeling some feeble minded people like to use as a security blanket between them and the practical realities of the real world.

The nature of man is to manage his surroundings.

Man was endowed with a creative mind and free will.

Vegans are free to follow the edicts of their mind but they are not free to impose the resolutions of what are extremist views upon other free minds and people who understand how real life really works.

Paddy – I commend you, from your post you read as a person who has lived his life with respect and caring for the things which fall within your realm and responsibilities.

Firstly Col Rouge, from your last post all that you have portrayed is your greed and supersized ego ... both of which are catalysts for violence and destruction. I must say with your hard earned money maybe you could move beyond yourself and look at what you could do to end pain and suffering somewhere for someone or something.

Col Rouge, in response to your original comment re: decline in kangaroo numbers … Government figures show that between 2001 and 2006 populations crashed across the country by 50-70%1. The Murray Darling Report talks about kangaroo density in relation to extinction where populations below 2 kangaroos per sq.km are quasi-extinct. However IN MOST OF S.A. AND N.S.W. WHERE THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY EXISTS, KANGAROOS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIMATED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF JUST 2 OR LESS KANGAROOS PER SQ. KM PUTTING THEM AT GREAT RISK OF EXTINCTION IF THE KILLING CONTINUES, which it is2. Killing 10-15% of a declining population during a severe drought is catapulting macropod species into an irreversible crisis. Kangaroos are regionally extinct in areas of WA, SA, Western NSW and Vic. The average age of a red kangaroo is 2 years in New South Wales when they could live to an average age of 25. There were an estimated 200 million at the time of the first settlers. The official 2007 estimate is 24 million kangaroos. In 2007, 3.8 million were killed commercially (combining non-commercial killing, recreational hunting, government “culls,” road kills, illegal killing and uncounted joey deaths the total is closer to 7 million).
See
1.http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/population/index.html
2. AAT Submission, General Administration Division, NSW District Registry, No. 535 of 2007 (exhibit 13).

Col Rouge you said that ‘Vegans … are not free to impose the resolutions of what are extremist views upon other free minds and people who understand how real life really works’. How closed minded! To understand how real life really works … well real life is our environment, the world that we live in, it is mans delusion of the ‘real world’ that has caused destruction of the planet. No planet, no mankind.

Let us get something straight:

Kangaroos are NOT domesticated animals, bred for hundreds of years to be passive victims of man like sheep, goats and cattle.

They can NOT be farmed, and I really wish the silly people (TurnRightThenLeft) advocating roo farming would find out some facts. Kangaroos simply can not cope with the imprisonment, herding and handling that domesticated animals can. They quickly suffer from stress-related conditions, if they have not already died from broken limbs or capture myopathy, an agonising death.
They can not be farmed, only hunted. So please, no more of this ridiculous 'argument'.

The arguments so far seem to fall into two broad groups: those advocating roo slaughter say that they choose to eat meat and it is their right to eat whatever meat they like. A purely personal argument. Also that cruelty happens in life, so accept it; and interestingly that man has the right to 'manage' his surroundings, which seems to mean removing anything that is not of use.

The others talk about the broader issues like: wildlife conservation, the intolerable and inherent cruelty, the rights of wild things to live without the threats of exploitation, Australia's appalling record, and vegetarianism as an alternative.

I would like to ask those who say we have the right to 'manage' (read: exploit) our surroundings: where does this right come from? What authority do we have to 'manage' wild creatures like whales, seals or kangaroos for our own profit? These do not belong to any person or country as sheep do. Aren't there enough examples of population crashes in over-exploited wild populations to indicate that this is a very dangerous road? What happened to the Thylacine, Toolache Wallaby, Paradise Parrot, and almost the Blue Whale?

There is a major point here, that you touched on Kowari, that not many may have picked up on,possibly including yourself.

Wildlife, such as kangaroos etc. stand a much greater chance of survival if they are able to be assigned value and can be able to be protected by property rights and managed as other assets are. That way their "owners" (managers, custodians, stweards, whatever) can protect them and be able to demand fair compensation from trespassers (poachers, illegal hunters, polluters, whatever).

If in one way they can be turned into an eco-tourism asset as has been suggested by Macropodlady, great! I think this would be an excellent way to go. I get the feeling however, that this may not work for all parts of the country. But 'farmers' (managers, whatever) don't kill all their herds at once. They manage them so that they ensure the survival of their assets. Domestication is not required for 'farming', eg. honeybees aren't domesticated, fish are not domesticated.

But the main point is that proper value needs to assigned to these animals, and management dollars can then be assigned to protect them. If they remain priceless (esp. in an ideological way), they remain worthless to a system that requires managment funds to be accounted for.

Reply to comment by Col Rouge:

I guess what is ethical and what is not is open to debate. Some consider contraception and passive euthanasia unethical, others do not. As for vegans imposing their views on others: what about all those hypocritical, puritan values that people are punished for "offending", such as swearing, nudity, trespassing etc? On the other hand, victims of bullying, ridicule, mobbing and financial scams are not offered any protection, and solicitors are not willing to represent them in court. If, however, the victims fight back, they are punished very severely. In the 1970-s and 1980-s, it was not unusual for the teacher to ridicule a person who liked animals in front of the whole class. I guess that kind of terror is accepted by society, whereas if animal rights activists protest against an individual vivisector, that is regarded "terrorism" (by the same police that are responsible for Aboriginal deaths in custody!)

As for animal rights activists being "feeble minded, sentimental or a small minority", that contradicts the claim that they "impose their values on others" since it takes a certain strength and intelligence to be able to change public attitudes and rethink the way things are done.

As for us being out of touch with reality, how did I manage and have the courage to return to a country at war in 1992 and serve in the army? Or achieve school marks and incomes in the top 5%, both in Australia and in Croatia? I also started recycling, including post-consumer plastics (HDPE, LDPE, PP) in 1990, before they had recycling codes, by calling the factories that made the products, asking who manufactured the plastics and what type they were, and then finding factories to accept them (they had to be as clean as pre-consumer plastic). Today, recycling is mainstream. In addition to my own activism, I donate to large professional organizations in Australia, the USA and the UK. In Croatia, I find it possible to combine a career, investing, and activism, which was difficult in Australia.

Here is the crux of the matter as to why opinions are so disparate. This is from Albert Einstein as quoted in ‘Quantum Reality, Beyond the New Physics' page 250.

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”

Some folks aim for this ideal, others don’t even know of its existence.

Jonathon

It strikes me that the vegans pushing their barrow are doing so with a near-religious fervour, with an arrogance and superciliousness which leads one to think that they beieve themselves to be a more highly evolved form of human being.

The reality is that humans (and a very large number of animals in the natural world, not just cats) are omnivores. Our digestive tracts are designed to process many different kinds of food. Ditto bears, foxes and pigs. Even honey-eating birds indulge in the occasional insect to get the protein they need. To suggest that the vast array of species in the animal world can exist as "vegans" suggests that the brain of the proposer is on another planet (called "Vega").

I note too that the only "vegan" bear, the Giant Panda, was once a carnivore/omnivore (and have the teeth to prove it) and because of its diet spends a huge proportion of its waking hours eating or digesting bamboo. The koala's brain has actually shrunk over evolutionary time since how many brain cells are required to eat leaves half the day then spend the other half sleeping and digesting?

Humans evolved the large brains we have because we are meat eaters. Vegans and some vegetarians present themselves as "higher forms" of humanity yet their brains and digestive systems are those of meat-eaters.

In response to comment from Viking13:

Veganism has nothing to with religion, but to do with one choosing to be ethical, moral and considerate to the world and environment that we live in. In fact I would associate eating meat with being more religious and in keeping with the delusional superiority ideals found in the bible and underlying causes of war.

Felines are the only animal in which their body systems physically need meat to survive. However the majority of other animals require eating meat for survival purposes due to meat being their available food source in their environment i.e. bears, foxes and pigs. Human body systems are designed to only eat meat for survival purposes in the absence of alternative food sources. There are enzymes in meat that the human body physically can’t break down which evidences the better suitability of a vegan diet. Man has developed way past the point where they need meat to survive, now meat is eaten for pure greed purposes (because it tastes good and they can!). Without the consumption of meat, in the presence of a balanced diet man would continue to thrive intellectually. The essentials for brain development are also found non-meat products.

And viking13 you have some misconceptions regarding koalas. They are intelligent animals. They play a vital role in our ecosystem. That role is to process a particular leave (a leave only consumed by koalas), and due to the inedibility of this leave they require a lot of sleep in order to digest it. Loss of the particular role that koalas play would have a devastating impact on the ecosystem. They do not sleep a lot because they are unintelligent due to their vegan diet.

While it is possible in our society to live a healthy life as a vegan, I wouldn't claim that it is natural for us - while not an expert I spent a number of years looking at the literature and doing a thesis on women and iron.

Humans have been adapted to a hunter/gatherer life style for the greater part of our evolution. I don't think many hunter/gatherers would have said no to a bit of tasty herbivore on the plate - non I know of.

Shifting to agriculture was a bit of a disaster for us (especially for women's health) in a way. We had more children, had them earlier, our population levels went up which meant we got more infectious diseases and our parasite loads went screaming up because we were staying put, and we often degraded our environment. Women in third world countries are dying in the thousands still from this combination and from the linked iron deficiency. They also often get access to the iron rich meat last in society. Like it or not, it's harder to absorb iron from plant sources.

So while we can get away with it here because of our rich and varied diet and good health, it's not a good choice (choice is often not there for third world women) for many of the world's poor.

So nothing natural about being vegan. If being vegan has any moral superiority, well maybe if you are eating animals kept in factory conditions. Personally I don't have any problem with munching on a roo that probably had a pretty good life, I feel it's much better than eating a cow.