Cuphandle. If you want to save them all, I suggest you take them home to your place & feed them. ;-o

By the way they ARE good eating.

Is it just because you are possibly white anglosaxon, & they are not farm reared cattle, you won't eat them? That's the reason why the first settlers almost starved to death when Europeans first came to Australia. If they would have eaten them then, then we would have been eating them now as a matter of course. It's our European Culture that stops us from eating them. Consider other Cultures. They eat lots of things we wouldn't even consider. eg; Dog, Monkey, Rat & Crickets.

Fact: There are more Red & Grey Kangaroos now then when when European first arrived due to the clearing of the land which has allowed more grassland for them to graze on.

You have allowed yourself to become too emotionally attached to an IDEA.

Please, come back to reality & don't be such a crybaby.

“I see. Tell me, do you have a better method of controlling wild dogs?”

Yes I do but frankly I can’t be bothered advising you TRTL as I can see you are hell-bent on defending the use of 1080. However, I remind you that only neglectful humans are responsible for domestic animals seeking refuge in the bush.

And seemingly you are unconcerned with the threatened extinction of the dingo?

I remind you also that 58% of Australia's land mass is occupied by livestock which is predominantly responsible for our threatened eco-systems.

‘Thus, native species have a built up resistance, and it doesn't harm native wildlife, as opposed to introduced dog species. I grant you, it often gets domestic dogs’

Errr….no TRTL – not quite. You really should keep abreast of the current scientific research if you wish to act as an authority:

Scientists working at the State Government's Mount Pleasant Laboratories and the Australian Animal Health Laboratories are close to ruling out a viral cause.

A trial is about to examine whether natural or man-made toxins could be to blame. There was speculation last year that chemicals such as 1080 poison or herbicide sprays could be implicated. I have not yet learnt of the outcome. No doubt, as per usual, I anticipate the government's outcome will differ to an independent expert's theories:

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20081401-16783-3.html

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/1080-seemour/

I shan’t prolong the post TRTL. It is clear that you are one of the many on this thread who believes they have dominion over all species and that they remain free to profit from the suffering of others. You are yet to realise that humankind has not woven the web of life.

Humans are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.

“Those who are afraid to admit that, are the ones who often to (sic)more damage to the environment through stupidity.”

Touche TRTL!

'Humans are but one thread within it. Whatever they do to the web, they do to themselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.'

Yep. Which makes it just as stupid to attempt to save a species from extinction when there is no proof we have caused the problem. It's just as bad as driving a species to extinction. Both are interferring with nature.

Also, when other animals want to eat, they don't think about the numbers of their prey that are left, and they just eat because they are hungry, and that is considered natural. Why are humans not part of the environment in this respect, but are part of it when it comes to conservation arguments?

Yes we have a brain and tools and agriculture, but we are still part of the food chain. At the top, and maybe a parasite, but we are naturally occurring.

So now it's philosophy then Dickie?

You state: "It is clear that you are one of the many on this thread who believes they have dominion over all species and that they remain free to profit from the suffering of others."

You assume wrong.

I'm no such thing. I do view us as one element of a much larger system.
I don't believe we're anything different than another species, albeit one with the ability to apply reason.

So try applying reason here.

There are always two options - do something, or do nothing.

The implication of your argument is, that by interfering in wild dog numbers, or in the roo cull, we're doing something wrong.

What is it you propose? We stop doing anything?
We remove all our conservation programs? Pest control? Tree planting?

Of course, that can't happen. It'd be nice if humanity's footprint vanished tomorrow, but grownups can see this isn't going to happen.

I doubt you're advocating we halt all programs. The sensible conclusion is that we have to make decisions.

Often, they're hard decisions without the clear 'good' or 'bad' guys you seem to enjoy envisioning.

We can look at the bigger picture. We can accept wild dogs exist out there, be they because of neglectful owners or otherwise, and they're preying on native animals.

Or we can close our eyes and ears, stop killing the precious dogs, and watch them devastate many native species already on the verge of extinction, and livestock.

I'm aware of the threatened extinction of the dingo. I'm also aware that dingos by and large, are already extinct from most of mainland Australia, and that the remaining animals out there are crossbreeds.
Most of the pure dingoes reside on Fraser Island, which is a different issue again.

I've yet to hear you state whether we should just let wild dogs run rampant, killing native species. I've yet to hear a practical alternative.

Until you've the courage to make a practical decision or discuss it rationally, stop pretending your decisions have a monopoly on what's right and drop the self righteous moralising.

All other factors being equal, a humanely conducted kangaroo cull to prevent death by starvation is preferable - and I believe the cull was carried out by lethal dart in a painless fashion.

However, in Canberra as you can imagine there is much buzzing about this decision particularly given the DOD had decided to re-examine the option of relocation. Apparently there were offers by some landholders to take the kangaroos and it is purported that one animal rights group offered to pay the relocation costs.

If this was the case then relocation could have gone ahead and the cull would have been unecessary.

I have heard that relocation itself can be traumatic for kangaroos and often these animals find their way back to more familiar grazing ground. With the drought I wonder if there would have been enough food in the new location to sustain life.

I don't know the answers to these questions as I am not an expert on wildlife matters but it certainly makes one think.

I also wonder why the government has not undertaken a contraceptive control plan much earlier when the drought was well into its ravages some years ago. The DOD has let some kangaroos go as a control group to test the effects of contraceptive intervention. I guess time will tell if it is effective and worth following up on a larger scale should the drought continue.

"Until you've the courage to make a practical decision or discuss it rationally, stop pretending your decisions have a monopoly on what's right and drop the self righteous moralising."

My my TRTL. You insistence to continue off topic shows little regard for the author of this thread.

And it didn't take long for you to play the man eh?

You may continue with your vitriol, however, I have no intention of responding.

Nevertheless, my recommendations on improvements to the Dog Act are already officially recorded and well received.

But please don't fret TRTL. There are many here with whom you will find common interests.

So carry on with : "mine's bigger than yours swill." I shall decline your offer thank you.