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.......