Man who shoots 4 kangaroos with a crossbow gets 12 months jail (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/22/2721354.htm?section=justin).

Yet professional shooters that do a "humane" kill get paid for it.

I'm no greenie, but the hypocrisy/inconsistency is breathtaking. Now, either killing wildlife is bad or it isn't. The fact is that if you do things a bit wrong as a rank amateur you get the book thrown at you, but if you're really good at doing something bad, you do a service to society. Where's the justice? Go figure.

Isn't it simply a case of society taking the path of least resistance as per usual and foisting its burgeoning anger on the softest and easiest target? How hypocritical does that make society?

Who are professional shooters? Do you mean people who kill for food? Or something completely different?

Dear RobP,

I thought that the guy who shot the roos with
a bow and arrow has not been sentenced as yet -
he's case is being appealed.

I believe the difference in his method of
killing (with the bow and arrow), was considered an
extremely cruel method as far as the animals
were concerned. They suffered terribly and took
a long time to die. He also shot an endangered
species. He didn't know what he was doing -
simply inflicting pain on the animals. He claimed
that he thought roos were "vermin," akin to rats
only bigger.

Whereas professional hunters - know what they're doing,
they don't shoot endangered species - and they shoot
and kill instantly.

>>Who are professional shooters? Do you mean people who kill for food? Or something completely different?<<

robby22,

I don't have anyone specific in mind, however it's not too hard to imagine that there are a range of people that you find in any industry - the good, the average and the bad. My real point is that while the guy that used the crossbow obviously has a screw or two loose, in the scheme of things he's an amateur that probably just needs a short, sharp rap to the knuckles, so to speak. A year in jail seems excessive and if he is just a little bit bad or stupid, he could easily come out of jail a whole lot more embittered and worse. But, who's really to know?

Foxy,

The other point is that there are a few bad people in the professional roo shooters fraternity that do it regularly and with impunity. When it comes to raw intent, they have it all over the fellow with the crossbow. Now, how you judge a person goes to intent in my opinion not how effectively the shooter actually kills, although the "professionalism" with which he does his job is a side benefit in terms of the suffering of the animal. My real point is that society, through its justice system, should try and make sure that the penalties imposed are proportionate to the actual crimes.

I reckon even the professional roo shooters slightly miss their targets from time to time and leave the roos to die a slow painful death. Does anyone ever bother to check? For example, does the ordinary Joe actually care or jump around like a banshee when it's a "professional" out on a property who's leaving the animal in such a state?

I'd like to know where the 'endangered species' come from.

Also, it is thought that an animal shot with an arrow dies a much more peacefull death (provided it is a clean shot) as they simply beed to death, whereas when shot with a bull they die from shock as the bullet is not what kills, it is in fact the 'shock waves' that are cast from the bullet that kills in many cases.

moral relativism always leads to hypocrisy.