RobP,
The professional shooters are those that supply the roo meat industry.

They head shoot the roos with high powered rifles that have high powered scopes and are extremely accurate. Like all shots in a 1" group at 100metres. They cannot sell the carcase if body shot.

Not good example of hypocracy. Try our politicians if you want hypocracy.

We have laws against FGM and the incidence is increasing yet no person has ever been charged. Evidence is available from hospitals that treat post FGM problems. On the other hand they often raid and charge people holding cock fights. Forced marriages are also banned but no one has ever been charged, anothe case of blind eye.

Whats the difference between the latest 'Indonesian solution' for the illegal immigrants and the previous governments 'Pacific solution' It will stop the boats coming but little difference. You want hypocracy. Where are all those now that were so critical of the previous government about this. Many well known names and celebraties and not a peep out of them now. Thats hypocracy!

There is hypocracy everywhere you look in government.

As far as I know, professional shooters are generally very accurate (after all, bullets cost money; wasting bullets erodes your profits), and have a vested interest, as well as a regulatory requirement, in killing an animal as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Even some of those on the "green" side of things, such as Tim Flannery, have conceded that kangaroo harvesting is better, both environmentally and humanely, than other forms of animal husbandry. After all, the kangaroo is left to its own devices in the wild, until one night there's a bright light, a bang, and it's goodnight, nurse.

A vegetarian or vegan might have some grounds to argue against the 'roo industry, but I'd point out that plenty of animals died to bring that organic carrot to the table ... or don't the bugs the farmer killed to protect his crop count as animals?

"'Well,' said the animal, 'I know many vegetables that are very clear on that ..." - Douglas Adams, "The restaurant at the End of the Universe".

Doing an unpleasant but necessary job is one thing; inflicting pain and suffering on an animal simply for enjoyment is quite another.

Banjo,

I agree there are better examples of hyprocrisy, but I thought this particular case stood out like a sore thumb in terms of how one particular individual was somewhat scapegoated by the system. This could be the reason why the case was so prominent in the media.

Re shooters with high-powered rifles, all it takes is for the kangaroo to move its head slightly at the time of the shot and it is shot in the jaw rather than the brain, manages to hop away a few hundred metres and dies a slow death. I don't believe there are no such cases in the industry although there probably aren't many these days.

Clownfish,

If the guy did shoot the roo with a sense of pathological enjoyment, then this goes very much to intent and he's the sort of person that needs to be looked at much more closely by the justice system.

Punishment by way of community service should have been awarded instead of a long custodial sentence. For comparison, a first offender who stabs or brutally beats an innocent victim (human) might walk free with a fine and warning.

It was a foolish act by an irresponsible idiot and yes, the punishment is excessive and some of the summing up by the judge is questionable, raising a possible host of new charges by police in all sorts of circumstances where they choose to do so.

It is political correctness at work: furry animals are always delightful and are probably more 'valuable' than a human life. Must be, because many thousands of dollars can be spent on a futile 'rescue' mission for a macropod, but human patients wait years and may die before treatment is provided at a hospital.

However the community does accept the slow death often inflicted by indigenous people on animals (spears must be OK, but arrows are not!) and also other acts of cruelty - ever seen the state of dogs in some communities? Plainly the RSPCA chooses its targets and that is hypocrisy. It is also hyprocisy that multiculturalism regularly turns a blind eye towards similar grievous treatment of children, excusing it saying it is 'necessary' and 'understandable'. There is the usual example in the papers today http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26248782-952,00.html:

As someone who kills animals in course of a) providing food b) euthanasing sick/injured animals c) destroying vermin - the important factor is kill swiftly and cleanly. While having few reservations about use of any animal species as a food source deem it essential that high standards of animal husbandry for domesticated species are practised and domestic or wild, for food, control or sport, the animal despatched humanely.

Roos - endangered species? Roos are one native species to do quite well out of European settlement. West of the Divide grazing activity has established improved pasture and numerous permanent water points. Both factors have allowed kangaroos to flourish.

I believe jail terms are appropriate in instances of sadistic torture and profound cruelty to animals. What I find 'hypocritical' is where thugs who set upon innocents (looked at them the wrong way or just wrong time/place), leaving victims with scars, broken bones and sometimes permanent damage get away with suspended sentences or good behaviour bonds. Ditto ratbags who constantly defy DVOs.

Also teenage rampagers who parents CAN'T control - not because they lack interest or don't try, but because LAW protects the little bastards from parental discipline and allows them free rein to pursue antisocial/criminal behaviour.

EG - 'Darling' does a runner, moves in with older riffraff, roams streets committing petty crime and putting themselves at high risk, Dad & Mum find the absconder, grab him/her, bundle into car and take home, lock in room - well prepare for charges of assault, false imprisonment, child abuse ...... Happened to female acquaintance - 13 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER, mother was not 'allowed' to control her. Ended up abandoning child, moving to another town as she feared for younger child and influence the older one might exert. I have heard other stories along similar lines

At the same time - a PARENT is supposed to be responsible for their CHILD until age 18 and could well find themselves paying compensation for criminal damage their offspring has caused. Now that's HYPOCRACY

RobP,
The bloke that was charged left the animals wounded and apparently did not follow up. Vets treated two of them and one died. I have no sympathy for him as he deserved the sentence.

Just a pity you chose this as an example of hypocricy as there is plenty about.

I do not want to get into a debate with you about high velocity firearms and their knock down power. I have shot foxes professionally, all head shot so as not to damage pelts, and I can tell you that the shock power of a high velocity bullet in any part of the head of a roo will kill it.

No excuse for the idiot that was charged, his behaviour was worse than poor. I would not mind at all if the appeals court increased the penalty.