Recently the Federal Guvmint anounced plans to cull 500 on a defence property in Canberra. Inevitably there were protests, most vocally, or famously rather, is VIVA!, in the UK with Paul Macartney being a spokesman.

Due to Japan being the target of Australia's outstanding criticism of their whaling program they jumped up and shouted HYPOCRITES!. Also, inevitably, debate began over whether Japan had a point.

In my opinion Japan DOES have a point if your criticism of whaling is based totally on sentimentality. They have a point if you ignore the vast differences in evironmental impact of both species. They have a point if you ignore the blatant dishonesty in their reasoning behind their whaling program.

Unchecked, Roo's becoem as much of a problem as a rat plague would. Unchecked, Whales would be an animal of beauty everyone could see. Unchecked, Japan would turn OUR ocean into something resembling THEIR ocean. Go to Japan, buy a rod, and try catching a fish off a harbour.

The criticism of Japan is based on sentimentality, with a bit of racism thrown in for broader appeal. We should eat both whales and kangaroos.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

YA might need to explain to me where the racism comes into it.

Here's Greenpeace's take on it. Plenty 'o' facts and figures to go round. Didn't see much the same at 'ozpolitic'. Only (apparently) ones opinion.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling

Some key differences:

I think McCartney and the folks at Viva are idiots.

Aside from the fact that they could picket crueller practices such as live exports, or alternatively focus on some of the many, many endangered species, their goals would result in animal cruelty.

Australia has a drought cycle that essentially means roo populations explode then recede. It means that in harsh times, many just die and starve to death. Alternatively, we shoot a few. Whilst some people view the killing as cruel, I'd say compared to starvation it's pretty damn kind.

Why these 500 roos get attention when millions are culled each year is strange. Observe here for more: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/native_animals/permits_and_licences/kangaroo_harvesting/

Even the RSPCA has supported some roo culls.

On the whale issue, I sum it up with one word: endangered.

I'm not on about sentimentality, or their majesty. I'll eat cute or majestic animals. Lamb tastes great.

Endangered animals however, is another story.

There's your difference.

I was a professional hunter (culling and eradication) in a 'past life'. So my view on this topic FAR from sentimental. I understand the need, and the difference. I've seen it for myself.

Without actually having looked at the actual government release behind the cull. More than likely they didn't release anything. I am confused why 500 roos got this attention.

I don't believe they're being shot.

I believe also that <20% of the total (est) 20,000,000 population is culled yearly. Somewhere in the vicinity or 3.5 - 5 million.

Endangered is indeed the word. The Eastern Grey kangaroo is by no means endangered. I live in the bush, and I know people who shoot them perfectly legally for pet food to supplement their incomes. I go bush frequently to go fishing and there's heaps out there, particularly since the recent good rain. They frequently pass through our house paddock, in mobs.

The difference in this case is their proximity to suburban Canberra.

With respect to killing whales for food, endangered is still the word. If, for example, it can be reliably shown that there are sustainable numbers of Minke whales or dolphins out there, then there's no logical reason not to harvest some of them. After all, we do that to cows and fish. They're all sentient animals, but that's what people have always done.

However, I understand that many if not most Cetacean species are considered to be endangered, and they of course should be protected.