Animal rights activists are now trying to undermine Australia's exports of Kangaroo meat, by actively lobbying foreign governments to reduce their imports.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25490813-5013871,00.html

I object to this on a number of grounds, but the foremost point I'd like to make is that these activists are harming our environment.

You heard me.

Kangaroos are a native animal to Australia and don't damage the environment in the same way that imported animals such as cows do when farmed on a mass scale.
Many of the dire ecological problems in Australia such as salinity and soil erosion, can be traced to bad farming practices which were essentially caused by importing farming methods and animals to a continent that was not suited for them.

So, farming kangaroos is infinitely preferable to farming cows, however difficult it may be.

Secondly, I'd point out that the Queensland government culls roughly a million kangaroos a year. I can provide links if necessary.

That's just Queensland. And yet, kangaroos aren't endangered. I do believe the cull is a necessity and it's a horrific waste if we don't at least use these animals.

It's moves like these, that make the public believe groups such as 'Animal Liberation' aren't credible.

In my opinion, instead of doing valid things like drawing attention to live exports (a heinous practice which should be stopped) they get the public off side by sabotaging industries with potential, which actually are preferable for our environment.

And people, can we please not resort to childish name-calling? I note that often seems to happen on threads related to animal welfare.

TRTL, I couldn't agree more. If we're going to farm meat animals in this country, macropods are the go. I understand that there are technical issues with husbandry and slaughtering techniques, but I can't see why they can't be overcome.

Ditto with crocs - I think there's an argument for culling them from populated areas, and their meat is very good - a bit like pork, but without the animal welfare and environmental issues associated with intensive pig farming.

Well you have my vote as well.

Roos cost nothing to breed and are the ultimate 'value adding' example within our meat industry.

The animal libs can't have it both ways, unless of course there comes a day when the roos are exported live.

TRTL et al

I agree with all.

Moving towards sustainable living means accessing what our environment naturally provides - this eliminates the artificial environments we maintain for the breeding of pigs, cattle, sheep. With a lesser emphasis on farming introduced species, there is room for both the farming of our abundant native fauna (such as crocodiles and grey kangaroos) and smaller holdings for animals such as sheep (is there a substitute for wool?).

There is no need for intensive, production line farming of any animal. We have attempted to imitate farming practices that have their origins in the northern hemisphere - this is Australia, it is a land of abundance if we can just change the way we farm to fit the environment rather than trying to change the environment to suit incompatible farming.

Kangaroo leather and meat is far superior to that of cattle and they don't have the special needs of introduced animals.

Gotta agree with you on the croc, CJ. I've had it once and it was immensely enjoyable. Like chicken, but very tender with a hint of fishiness. You just gotta get the right tangy sauce.

I'm hoping this 'lobbying' proves to simply be the same kind of ad-hoc press-release distribution they've done in the past, as opposed to a concerted effort. Somehow I doubt they've got the resources to be considered a serious influence on foreign governments - at least, that's what I hope.

I’ve become a great fan on roo meat, now that it is readily available in supermarkets. It is excellent tucker and competitively priced compared to beef, etc.

So I’m certainly in favour of a well-developed roo meat industry.

But I’m not so sure about large-scale exports across the world. One of the problems is that if it really catches on, we’ll be boosting intensive farming and/or wild harvesting of roos, perhaps to a point where it becomes detrimental to the environment and the species involved. And….none of this is likely to replace beef to any significant extent. It’ll only be added to beef production and exports, in all probability.

The other big thing about exporting roo meat, and indeed any foodstuffs, is the unavoidable fact that we are feeding rapidly growing populations, which is having an enormous negative environmental impact.

It is a pity that our exports can’t have a proviso attached – that the governments of receiving countries be required or at least requested to put a significantly increased effort into population stabilisation and other sustainability issues in their countries in order for them to receive our goods, or received them at a discounted price.

Kangaroos, like any other animals, including humans, are fine until there are too many of them.

Culling is fine but, I hope we do not see the culling matching some exporters needs for meat. Culling should be for the good of the animal, not someone's industry.

Farming of kangaroos is totally impractical, and many people will not eat kangaroo meat for 'cuddly jooey' reasons or, like me, they remember the smell of it before it is cooked.

Farming of kangaroos is totally impractical, and many people will not eat kangaroo meat for 'cuddly jooey' reasons or, like me, they remember the smell of it before it is cooked.

Totally aggree with above, first up kangaroos don't breed the same as domesticated livestock, it all depends on the season and the amount of feed available! As a roo shooter many years ago... I will not eat roo meat. When sheep & cattle are slaughtered they are "bled" instantly, not so with kangaroo's... they are shot and carried until you have enough to "butt" or skin! hence all that congealed bloody meat in the butcher shop.

Starship, I don’t find the smell of raw roo meat at all off-putting. Lots of people must feel the same. It must be selling well in the supermarkets, otherwise it wouldn’t have stayed on sale for long.

We all have our preferences and obviously roo meat won’t appeal to everyone. But it clearly does appeal to a significant fraction of the populace.

The smell, the ‘cuddly joey’ factor, the congealed blood factor (or furphy) and whatever else, are minor negatives.

I think that there is plenty of scope for a considerably larger roo meat industry. But not too big.

What Ludwig said.

Lots of people find the smell of raw lamb unpleasant too - not to mention fish! However, lots of people like to eat them both when they're cooked.

Yes, there are husbandry and technical problems, but I still don't see that they're insuperable. After all, roo meat is already widely available in Australian supermarkets.

Having said that, I take Ludwig's point about overexploitation.

I tend to agree. There are real problems when we start dictating which animals have more rights than others based purely on the cuteness factor. If we eat cows, fish and chicken why not kangaroo?

Culturally I can understand the reluctance for some to eat kangaroo and I would probably choose not to eat it. I have tried it once and maybe it wasn't cooked in the right way (I believe it is easy to overcook)but I didn't like it.

I take Leigh's point about the practicality of farming kangaroo and how this could be done ethically. I wouldn't imagine kangaroos could be herded into small overpopulated enclosures without impacting on the idea of ethical farming.

The other factor is the risk of species extinction but I don't see that as a problem for kangaroos if there is some regulation on culling numbers.