# To cull or not to cull... that is the question...



## slim6y (Oct 13, 2006)

I did happen to start this thread and hijack another which is wrong. So let that all be a lesson yto you all.

It did start when Cris put me in his/her idiot book for having an opinion that Aussie like to cull things... Especially their own native wildlife.

I have lived here for on a year now and LOVE the country. But the attitude of some Aussies to their wildlife is atrocious borderline genocide in some cases.

In NZ we have a problem with an introduced pest.. Funny enough it's an Aussie... Possums! There are something like 80 million possums in NZ eating and deforesting our wonderful land. I am not exactly sure how they were introduced. But they are heavily hunted for sport in NZ and I don't say it's right. So before you start saying to me, look at your own (ex) country let's get this thread right.. I am talking about Australian natural wildlife!

Now I read in many areas how kangaroo populations have exploded. But what many of this editorials fail to tell you is how come these roo populations exploded. Here is the low down...

Farming our land sustainabley meant irrigation and fertilisation of the land. The land grew quickly. Along with the high growth of food for cattle, sheep and humans came an increased number of invertabrates and vertabrates now thriving in these new conditions.

In particular macrovertabrates such as roos. 

These roos became so over populated and were contiunally increasing their poplation size that it was no longer sustainable to have roos and humans living side by side. One had to go. Was it going to be humans??? Nope... The choice by many governments was to cull the critters. Even the RSPCA had a say on how to do it humanely.

Relocation was never an option. Logistically impossible.

But this doesn't count for all roo species. Infact many roo species are on a heavy decline due to loss of usable habitats, deforestation, food sources destroyed, land use changes etc.

So my point is - should we actually cull our national species??? No where else in the world do these animals exist....

Next on the list.. bats... the glorious fruit bats...

We remove their homes plant up forests of exotic fruit species and then complain that the bats are over populating... do we cull them to? 

Crocodiles start coming into cities becuase much of their land is used for farming and they are frowned upon when cattle get eaten... Do we shoot them?

Imagine if carpet pythons got to plague proportions... Do we kill them to satisfy our wants (not needs)?

I don't know what this thread is going to attract... but I am saying that culling is never a good option and there is always better options. Unfortunately humans are to stubbourn to move themselves.

So if you want to add your two cents worth don't target me... target the ideas... That way no one feels like they have been bitten... I am keen to hear the views of actuall wild life friendly aussies.. and most of you should fit into that category...

Thanks anyhow... I shoudl re-read this rant to see if it makes sense.. but blah... not gonna happen...

Will add more if the debate heats up...


----------



## Tatelina (Oct 13, 2006)

In the words of Slipknot... People = s***
And its very true. We are too stubborn to move and too inconsiderate to consider our actions on a wider scale.
I do not agree with culling either....but somethings got to be done and like always, doesnt seem like humans will use their brains to do something better than the most commen things.


----------



## Australis (Oct 13, 2006)

I dont think the grey roo is in any form of decline from culling, i have no problem with the culling of grey roos or any other roo species that reaches plague numbers.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 13, 2006)

I just said something of significance in the other post even if I do say so myself...

"We do not change the way we live to suit our environment we change our environment to suit the way we live!"

I hate the fact that we get to the "but it's something that has to be done" attitude...

In Switzerland the rivers run through areas where they want to build, so they 'change' the river... in Swiss it's called something that losely translates to 'river correction' 

In aussie culling is tantamount to "roo correction" eeeek... 

I don't think it stops at roos either!


----------



## junglejane (Oct 13, 2006)

I have no problem with the culling of animals if the animal is deemed a pest/plague. We have a bad kangaroo problem and last year had to cull a few, They were starting to get boistrous and attack people also alot were gettinghit by cars which is bad for both people and kangaroos. But i've seen the damage done if something isn't culled, its like carp, its illegal to put a carp back in the river once you catch it, sometimes it just has to be done!!
I actually want to write to local council about getting a cat cull done. We have a severe problem with feral cats and it drives me and my dogs insane. Do people realise pet cats are not allowed out at night??


----------



## Nephrurus (Oct 13, 2006)

P.M me your address so i can send you some bandages to mop up the blood from your bleeding heart. 

Eastern and western grey kangaroos never were at these densities prior to European settlement. As most of us know, the kangaroo is superbly adapted to the arid environment, geared for the population to explode when times are good, and then to just make it through the bad. Many of the yearling roos die (around 80+% for young at foots). 

The removal of dingos from most areas (another predator of young roos) means less juvenile mortality. The addition of stock watering points throughout the semi arid rangelands means an even higher rate of survival. 
These factors, plus a few more, mean roos reach unnaturally high densities, and the land, already suffering from sheep and cattle degradation, is further degraded. 
Like you said, relocation is not an option, not from an economic point of view, but from and animal welfare perspective. Kangaroos are incredibly prone to stress and the resulting post capture myopathy. Kangaroos do not herd easily either... herding generally results in animals injuring themselves. Translocation of large numbers would be horrendouly costly (in terms of boths animals lives and $$$). 

How bout herding them from affected land? Herding splits social groups of kangaroos, separating mothers and young at foot. It's also stressful for male roos as a social pecking order has already been established. Mothers with pouch young are also prone to kicking out their joeys when herded. 

Humane management of kangaroo populations is cheap. It requires the use of several professional shooters. Anyone who has seen them at work will attest that less than 0.1% are not head shots, instant kills. 

The "culling" is more of a harvest. The carcases are used for human and animal consumption and the skins used for a variety of purposes. 
To date, no evidence shows that eastern and western greys have suffered from the regulated culling of their populations. It's not a new thing either, it's be happening for 20+ years. I have no idea of the resulting employment this industry generates in rural areas, but it would not be minor.


-H


----------



## Kiwicam (Oct 13, 2006)

Nephrurus said:


> P.M me your address so i can send you some bandages to mop up the blood from your bleeding heart.
> -H


 
Haha - 5 posts in and I guess the "Target the idea not the person" just flew out the window aye Paul  

I say kill zem all, and ve vill rule ze planet as ze dominant virus..mwahahahaha!


----------



## Dan123 (Oct 13, 2006)

Lol


----------



## cris (Oct 13, 2006)

Relocation isnt an option? i remember one wildlife warrior spent thousands of dollars to save an orphaned grey roo, they rasied it amongst ppl in their zoo and then released it back into the wild(where it would have no doubt died fairly quickly). They now have millions of dollars so they could save all the roos in Australia rasie them like pets and then release them to a cruel death woohooo!!!
Isnt it great to get that warm fuzzy feeling of thinking you are doing good just because you cant handle reality.

By law roos must be shot in the head with a gun about 4 times more powerful than what is really needed. This ensures a humane instant kill.
Most roo shooters also kill alot of feral animals like pigs(they get money for them) goats, foxes, cats etc. 

As i mentioned before its our job to look after things now, luckily this is being done by rational ppl instead of bleeding hearts such as yourself who cant handle reality. We still have a long way to go but to stop harvesting/culling roos would be a really big mistake.

If you dont like it here where ppl shoot roos, go back to kiwi land and kill possums. Also it might be an idea to gets some sort of factual basis for your arguement apart from the typical ignorant bleeding heart BS.

My monitor is munching on a roo right now and i have to go now to feed some to my dog


----------



## kel (Oct 13, 2006)

well you'll hate me slim6y my husband and i and our kids spend most weekends "culling" pests in our local area, weapon of choice being bow and arrows 

we shoot mainly goats, deer and roos with the occasional pig thrown in
however most of what we kill gets eaten by us or our dogs


----------



## Mayo (Oct 13, 2006)

When I was at Pucka Barracks they had just done a cull, you couldn't even tell that they had culled any. There was no food for them at the time and most were beginning to die from starvation. What would you prefer would you like to see them starve to death or would a bullet look better. Sometimes ****** just has to be done and those who no the least about whats going on are the loudest voices you hear.


----------



## Davo66 (Oct 13, 2006)

The roos at Pucka have been out of control for years, they are some of the biggest grey roos I have ever seen in my life!
Davo


----------



## jessop (Oct 13, 2006)

slim6y said:


> Imagine if carpet pythons got to plague proportions...



Now wouldn't that be cool  I can see the headlines now "Hoard of angry snakes take over Australia as herpers run amok"


----------



## xander (Oct 13, 2006)

I love marsupials and have handreared some, but what I think is that sheep,cows,pigs have destroyed the land by their hard hooves compacting soil creating desertation.Roos however are designed to live and cope with the harsh aussie environment.It would be more sustainable both environmentally and economical if Aussies ate roos(Est greys and reds)and didnt eat cattle,etc.Kangaroos also are basically baby machines,they can have a joey at foot,one in the pouch and another on the way.So I dont think they could possibly become endangered.(Im only referring to Kangaroos,not wallabies)Also no trees need to be cleared for roos as oppossed to greenhouse emmiting cattle.


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 18, 2006)

Im sorry but most people who live in suburbia do love roos and all the furry little creatures that the bush has but in the real world they can be a pest and have to be contolled to some degree.Bow and arrow I dont know so much too many near misses or near hits for my likeing but humane culling is a must.I invite anyone to come out my way Im on the cusp of the great dividing range and tell me we should stop culling.Cattle ,sheep,goats, and pigs can all be a menace but they can also be controlled by fencing,try keeping a roo confined it cant be done unless you want 15 foot cyclone fences JMO but having been a farmer and a land owner for over 25 years there is a place for everything and also a limit to what can have a place.
Odie


----------



## wokka (Oct 18, 2006)

Once we humans change the environment we need to take responsibility for the domino effect those changes cause. On one hand reliable water supply is good but by removing the natural control of drought many different animals over breed to drown out the environment. Its a copout to say we must not cull. We caused the problem so we own the problem. Likewise for cats ,possums, salt ,erosion.


----------



## Retic (Oct 18, 2006)

I also hate the idea of shooting the very animal we portray as our national symbol, of course I wasn't born here so I am apparently not allowed to have this view. Maybe I should go 'home' because the thought of killing millions of kangaroos doesn't appeal to me ?
WE create the problem and then have to solve it but shooting huge numbers of animals that are supposed to be here to make more room for animals that aren't. 
We are in the middle of the worst drought Europeans have probably ever seen and has it changed the way we do things ? Absolutely not. We will continue to bulldoze every tree in sight and introduce hard hooved animals to destroy whatever is left. Does it make sense ? Of course not but there's money in it. 
I also hate the word 'pest' being used to describe a native anaimal.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

Many of your posts talk about culling introduced species... To me that makes sense. But recall this... We are (humans) an introduced species to Australia and we are also to blame for the population explosion of many of these animals.

Now take the humble possum. Not in huge numbers in this fine land, some would say struggling in parts. Yet 80 million of them live in NZ. They're considered a pest. So they are hunted... not culled.

Pigs, goats, cats etc are hunted because of their pest status.

Kangaroos are culled because they're a native species and we still want them alive.

For the most, i would suggest people here would be against slaughter of snakes... Which is exactly how this thread originally started... And as one has so put it... it would be cool to hav e a plague of carpet pythons... Many of you would be up in arms if the councils started to cull of carpet pythons (not all of you - some are just plain heartless).

And thanks kiwi - some people still have to attack the person not the idea... No bandages could fix this bleeding heart... I need a cement mixer 

I still sit back and think "We change our environment to suit our lifestyles not change our lifestyles to suit our environment" is by far perfectly portrayed in Australia.

A pure prime example is the illegal and ill planned release of cane toads. Which in their native country flourish, but not to the extent they do here.

This is of course a pest. Destroying areas where our native animals live, killing snakes and birds etc... this is a pure example of changing our environment...

Land use - irrigation, cropping, agriculture etc... More change of the environment...

All i am saying is... We are the ones that need to change... Not the kangaroos.

I heard a report that Australia is encouraging a doubling plus some of its population... that will take the population count to over 50 million. That certainly puts humans in the 'non-endangered' category.

This country is plenty big enough for everyone, but not 50+ mill! Another changing the environment to suit the lifestlyes of aussies...

See my point is clear - we are to blame so we have the power to fix it... But how? And I say culling is not the answer!

Attack the idea for discussion, not me because i am purely taking an opinion and offering others respite... I don't hate anyone who culls/kills/hunts... that's their perogative... But i would like them to think of the reasons they're doing it and if they're doing it for the right ones...

Instantly I hear people saying roo pests etc... Just remember, it's because of humans they got to this proportion!


----------



## cheazy (Oct 18, 2006)

well we screwed the environment and so we gotta fix it, and i dont no any other ways of getting rid of thousands of roos at a time??? ... suggestions??? besides its mainly done by professionals who know what theyre doing.


----------



## Magpie (Oct 18, 2006)

slim6y said:


> Many of your posts talk about culling introduced species... To me that makes sense. But recall this... We are (humans) an introduced species to Australia and we are also to blame for the population explosion of many of these animals.


 
I have a real problem with the fact that this view is so widely held. An eastern grey kangaroo found 200km from where eatern greys lived prior to european settlement is just as feral as a cat, goat or dog.
Just because something is native to Australia does not mean it is native to the area.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

Magpie said:


> I have a real problem with the fact that this view is so widely held. An eastern grey kangaroo found 200km from where eatern greys lived prior to european settlement is just as feral as a cat, goat or dog.
> Just because something is native to Australia does not mean it is native to the area.



Interesting point... hehe... 

Feral \Fe"ral\, a. [L. ferus. See Fierce.] (Bot. & Zo["o]l.)
Wild; untamed; ferine; not domesticated; -- said of beasts,
birds, and plants.

Hmmmm... Well does that mean sugar gliders are feral too??? They're not domesticated...

Nor are they beasts however... similar to be said of roos...

However...

feral
adj : wild and menacing; "a ferocious dog" [syn: savage]

The adjective would be close to stating a wandering roo was a 'menace'.

How ever native to a country normally isolates pockets of the said species.. Therefore on that suggestion any new pockets that may occur will be ordered by natural selection. 

In the case of cane toads... not native to this country nor area, but natural selection is forcing other animals (natives) out...

Now a native forcing a further native out does sound closer to natural selection, therefore the word feral in my opinion is not the word to use...

This easter grey found its way, 200km from its own family... Natural selection will therefore determine the order of species in that pocket... 

Sorry magpie, all respect to you and the idea. But I just don't buy it 

Keep it rolling!

(incidentally, for your info, I'm not anti culling, im anti murdering for our mistakes)


----------



## Mayo (Oct 18, 2006)

For all those bleeding hearts take a wonder through pucka and see all the Roo's dieing of starvation, and illness. We are talking about plague proportions of animals here not endangered natives, or even natives that are blossaming. I think a few people need to take a drive out of the city and drop into see a few farmers and find out what is really going on. I haven't seen a practical solution yet other than to do regular culls. I've seen a Roo go over a 15 foot cyclone fence, it clipped the top but still made it over. Try farming an animal that can do that, it has been done don't get me wrong but not sustainable.


----------



## kel (Oct 18, 2006)

"Bow and arrow I dont know so much too many near misses or near hits for my likeing"


not entirely true a skilled archer will hit and kill far more then an unskilled shooter, archery is a sport of skill and patience, we dont just drive around in a 4x4 shooting at anything that moves we have to stalk the prey and get close enough for a true shot ,sometimes this can take hours to kill one animal and once we hit an animal if it runs as some do we track it down to make sure it is dead.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 18, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*

Over the years I have read and heard the tireless argument about how kangaroo populations have grown to plague poportions as a result of land-use changes that Europeans have visited upon this continent.

We have all been brain-washed ad-nauseum with the belief that killing is now the only solution for this "problem" and the bigger the kill, the better. 

Now, in this day and age of terrorist threats, even the national symbol of Australia has become fair game ! 

Well quite frankly...when one considers the entire macropodid radiation, the facts just do not support the actions. Even the periodic bursts of recovery that two or three species experience should not be taken as justification for what is without doubt a mindless act of extirmination.

We are currently living in a time of global wildlife slaughter that probably has no equal in human history, and in my opinion this so-called "culling" of kangaroos is among the worst examples on the planet.

It must be stopped, and stopped very quickly indeed.

Now, I know there are some very experienced and intelligent users of this forum that will recoil in horror to their filing cabinets to prove me wrong. So, go right ahead and pluck out any of the various reports by the honourable Professor Destructo of the University of Stupidity and Ignorance, and I'll rip them to shreds.

You will only succeed in boring me with these numerous, publicly-funded academic diatribes about how Australia can "safely" kill-off millions of Red Kangaroos and Grey Kangaroos each year and actually HELP our environment. I already have all the reports, all the so-called scientific papers, read all the projections...and most importantly have seen the results. And the results are appalling, the responsibility awful.

These so-called scientific reports and papers that have been written to justify the culling of roos are, in my opinion, documents of disgrace. To me, many are flawed at the most basic level of methodology, and many contain both errors of interpretation and interpolation that would be a disgrace in a high school science project.

Yet billions of dollars of public money has been squandered in achieving little more than the protection of an industry operated largely by a pack of moronic animal butchers and part-time criminals.

The simple fact is all commercial and recreational killing of kangaroos should cease immediately. 

It's the bloodiest of disgraces, and it makes me sick to the depths of my being.

Richard Wells


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

Mayo said:


> When I was at Pucka Barracks they had just done a cull, you couldn't even tell that they had culled any. There was no food for them at the time and most were beginning to die from starvation. What would you prefer would you like to see them starve to death or would a bullet look better. Sometimes ****** just has to be done and those who no the least about whats going on are the loudest voices you hear.





OdessaStud said:


> Im sorry but most people who live in suburbia do love roos and all the furry little creatures that the bush has but in the real world they can be a pest and have to be contolled to some degree.Bow and arrow I dont know so much too many near misses or near hits for my likeing but humane culling is a must.I invite anyone to come out my way Im on the cusp of the great dividing range and tell me we should stop culling.Cattle ,sheep,goats, and pigs can all be a menace but they can also be controlled by fencing,try keeping a roo confined it cant be done unless you want 15 foot cyclone fences JMO but having been a farmer and a land owner for over 25 years there is a place for everything and also a limit to what can have a place.
> Odie



Well said mayo and Odie .Couldnt have put it better myself Odie, as a live on the cusp of the range aswell. I grew up around Sydney and some city folk just have no idea what it's like to live on the land.


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 18, 2006)

I think Roo’s are absolutely delicious!!  Apparently possum isn’t too bad either!  Quite frankly, anything that can be BBQed, salt and peppered and washed down with a coldie should be given at least a moments silence after it’s been taken out :lol: It’s a good thing we’re not a carnivorous species of animal, hell, we might even start having some compassion for lamb, duck and pigs (delicious the lot of em by the way )


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

By the way i'm not for culling, I have been a life time vegetarian. Hence I don't like culling animals but sometimes it just has to be done. Four people on my short country road have been killed alone due to accidents over roo's this year alone. The rest just lucky. Next time your feeding your herp what was once live food, or are eating a steak, think, does that bother you? Or does it not matter so much cause you did not do the culling.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh to some, but it is a way of life...


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

:lol: moose


----------



## kel (Oct 18, 2006)

lilith you just reminded me of my friends neighbours they too are vegetarian, but the sad part about this is all their animals are too dogs included, its no wonder then that their dogs killed and ate their goats is it lol

please note im not dissing vegetarians, just thought it was a funny story to share


----------



## Hunter (Oct 18, 2006)

Gotta say roo tastes way better than the brahmans they sell up here as our steak, less fat content also..


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

No offence taken kel.. I may be vegetarian, but i would not deprive my carnivorous friends, legged or not of a good feed of meat :lol:


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

I have heard that Hunter, not that i would know . I feel The quality of meat is declining due to the drought and all those extra roo's hopping around the place eating up the resources surely couldnt help...hmmm and those bunnies we have around here


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

Not meaning to hijack your thread SLiM6y


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 18, 2006)

lilith said:


> due to the drought and all those extra roo's hopping around the place eating up the resources surely couldnt help...hmmm and those bunnies we have around here



And those evil animals are eating your vege’s also lilith!!! Doesn’t that make you mad?? Even ANGRY?? I’ll tell you what, you club em and I’ll eat em and we’ll both benefit from it  What do you reckon?? Huh? Huh?


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

richardwells said:


> Yet billions of dollars of public money has been squandered in achieving little more than the protection of an industry operated largely by a pack of moronic animal butchers and part-time criminals.
> 
> The simple fact is all commercial and recreational killing of kangaroos should cease immediately.
> 
> ...



This statement complete BS. I have met roo shooters that are actually fairly bright ppl yes they are animal butchers obviously since they butcher animals for meat:lol: to judge a group of ppl as morons says alot more about you than it says about them. 
Im sorry we arnt all ethically supperior no it alls like your self, i would be interested to see the proof you have that shooting roos is bad for the environment.
I cant say i have ever heard of any factual arguement agianst the limited culling and harvesting of roos. I hear alot of emotion about how wrong it is to kill an animal but where are the facts to back it up?
I would also like to see your proof that roos cannot possibly have a negative impact on the environment.

I do agree with the ppl who suggest that we should not be farming destructive hoofed animals, but i dont see that changing myself and if it did that would just mean more roos would need to be used for meat so the bleading hearts would be out in force :lol:


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

Me?! Angry? ummm no, but some people might class me as a little mad  Be my guest moose, though i would probably find it more amusing watching you run around the paddock after them, i could supervise :lol:


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 18, 2006)

lilith said:


> Me?! Angry? ummm no, but some people might class me as a little mad  Be my guest moose, though i would probably find it more amusing watching you run around the paddock after them, i could supervise :lol:



hehehe :lol:


----------



## Magpie (Oct 18, 2006)

slim6y said:


> Interesting point... hehe...
> 
> Feral \Fe"ral\, a. [L. ferus. See Fierce.] (Bot. & Zo["o]l.)
> Wild; untamed; ferine; not domesticated; -- said of beasts,
> ...


 



So if we change the environment and allow the "native" animals to colonise areas they did not live before, in numbers that are far in excess of what they used to be, we should allow natural selection to deal with the problem. But if we move an animal over a bit of ocean, then we should try and eradicate them? Where's the line?

Oh, and I can play word games as well...



> Feral : Used to refer to animals which have become wild in an area outside of their natural range, usually due to human forces.


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

You do have a way with words Mags


----------



## Mayo (Oct 18, 2006)

Richard Wells you did nothing but blow hot air, Give me a viable alternative, or a practical solution and I'll listen but you said absolutely nothing. Do you live in the city and work out of a little cubicle? Just a though because you don't seem to understand the problem at all. Yes they are a native and humans have caused the problem but by not doing a regular cull we are only letting the problem get worse. The Roo's over population is killing off other species as well. Where is your bleeding heart for those animals dieing because the Roo's have eaten them out. 

And yes Skippy tastes good, good bit of butter on the plate for a good skippy steak, or cut off a chunk and wrap it in aluminium foil and stick it in the coal's all good (Just don't over cook get's to chewy).


----------



## Mayo (Oct 18, 2006)

Lilith you might not eat meat but doesn't mean meat eaters like gilly won't taste test you


----------



## lilith (Oct 18, 2006)

Mayo said:


> Lilith you might not eat meat but doesn't mean meat eaters like gilly won't taste test you



:lol: true, must mean us vegetarians are tasty then...to the scaled variety that is


----------



## Retic (Oct 18, 2006)

Very very well said Richard, believe me you speak for a great many people who find the 'limited' cull of millions of kangaroos deplorable. I watch these stories doing the rounds of farms where they have bulldozed every tree, filled it full of hard hooved animals and then want bailing out when every bit of topsoil blows away and they need an acre of land to feen one cow. The they want to be bailed out when there is the inevitable drought. 
I find it even more amazing that farmers actually grow rice in this country, we have the worst drought for 100 years and they are growing the most water hungry crop in the world.


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

The ppl against culling roos always seem to drift of the subject of the real situation and just complain about bad farming practices. This thread isnt about bad farming practice its about culling/harvesting roos. Farming of any kind will lead to an increase in roo numbers as it will provide food and water for the roos.
Although overgrazing can contibute alot to the effect roos have, causing them to swarm on places that arnt overgrazed and often destroying them. If you have ever seen a thousand or so roos in a small paddock you would know what im talking about.

Apart from the emotional issue some have with killing native animals it is actually very benificial to be harvesting roos. As pointed out by many hard hoofed animals cause far more damage so harvesting roos gives us a excellent source of environmentally friendly meat.

Boa did it occur to you that there are some areas where it does rain and there is plenty of water to grow rice or do you think they grow it in the desert.

If you want to winge about farmers winge about cotton farmers then i can whinge with you 

Im going to feed my monitors more roo meat now


----------



## richardwells (Oct 18, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*

"Richard Wells you did nothing but blow hot air, Give me a viable alternative, or a practical solution and I'll listen but you said absolutely nothing. Do you live in the city and work out of a little cubicle? Just a though because you don't seem to understand the problem at all."

Well, here's some more hot air for you. 

No I don't work in a little cubicle in some city office. I have a farm in rural New South Wales, where over the years I have had to endure the endless, illegal and totally unjustified slaughter of roos on our three properties by trespassing, gun-toting hooligans who call themselves recreational shooters. In the process, I have witnessed them killing everything from wedge-tail eagles to lace monitors, and have even had my life and my family's life threatened when I dared to stop their carnage. I don't understand the problem eh? Well, unfortunately I do understand it all too well. 

I also know that there would be some who practice their killing with a degree of crude professionalism, and I am sure that such people would find it equally hard to tolerate the rogue element in their activity. But, quite frankly, if you hang around poo you really can't complain if others think you stink. Make no mistake about it...a humane and caring bullet is still a bullet. To my mind, there is just no room for such unwarranted slaughter as is currently practiced, no matter how well-groomed the shooter. 

The myth that kangaroo culling is all clean-kill and sanitized just doesn't wash with me either, because I have seen the bad side and it is really bad. In one particular occasion, my neighbour was witness to an appalling incident where several Red-neck Wallabies and Swamp Wallabies were shot in the legs so that they couldn't escape, then they were dragged up to a barbed wire fence, then strung up while still alive, then shot in firing-squad fashion by a party of "recreational" shooters. When he protested the shooters erected a large target in the line of fire with his house ! I was there when the police arrived, I saw the shooter's handy work, and I know for a fact that nothing was done because there was no video evidence to support a prosecution...and as another neighbour remarked, "they were only roos anyway".

I have also seen first hand the work of the some of the supposed expert marksman who are licensed kangaroo shooters over the years, and the 99% head shot is the real BS. During such culls for roo meat orders, the speed of the "hunters" is phenomenal, with the slaughter occurring so fast that on occasions legs may be cut from the animal as it lay still dying on the ground, the spurting blood from the cut arteries proof that their heart was still beating when the knife went in.

As for practical solutions...farmers should stop using wildlife as an excuse for the destruction of fences that, for the most part, have long ago passed their use-by dates. They should start to invest in properly fencing their lands, and should they lose some crops to the roos... the Government should compensate them for the alleged losses instead of taking the cheap way out of encouraging the killing-off of the "problem". Most of the old fence-damage excuse as justification for culling is also grossly over-used and abused in my opinion. I have had kilometres of new fences placed around our properties without any significant damage from roos of any size. We are located between two sections of a National Park and all the wallabies and roos that live within these reserves regularly cross our lands without any trouble at all. They have no trouble jumping over most fences once they get used to their presence in the landscape. The only time there has been any damage is when idiots start their shooting sprees and panic them into crashing into some fences as they try to escape being killed.

Over the last ten years I have personally witnessed a massive decline in all of the four species in our area, and when the droughts are raging, our roos are always heavily hit by shooters. And which ones are they "culling"? Those very ones that manage to survive the droughts - the genetically most fit for surviving the hard times are the ones most rapidly reduced to a rotting carcass in our paddocks...And I have absolutely no doubt that its happening throughout the whole country as well.

So sure, it may seem like I am taking a high moral ground here, but why not, when there is almost no one there anyway? I have no trouble at all in taking a shot at an "industry" and a "recreation" that is little more than a brutal theft of our Nation's heritage.

I repeat...all Kangaroos and Wallabies should be totally protected from commercial and recreational hunting as a matter of extreme urgency...otherwise this generation will likely be witness to the rapid extinction of the last of Australia's megafauna.

It is my firm belief that the Governments of Australia should stop their pathetic inaction on this issue and immediately list ALL species of kangaroos and wallabies on their respective Threatened Species Conservation Acts or equivalents.

And, by the way it is I who must be convinced that they should remain unprotected...and you will have a very tough time convincing me that the blood and guts of a roo will outweigh one racing through the scrub...alive in all its glory, its every move reflecting the spirit of the country in which it lives....

Richard Wells


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

Just as i thought no facts or realistic solutions... Still you bring up some very emotional stories that have nothing to do with legal activity.

Recreational shooters are not allowed to kill any native animals except for fish and invertebrates, but you are right there should be a complete ban on the illegal shooting of our native wildlife :lol:

As for your stories about recreational shooters, To the general public they are a protected speices. Not to mention the breaches of the cruelty laws, if you care as much as you make out you do and witnessed these things why dont you get these ppl charged for their crimes?

I also like the way you have generalised recreational shooters as irresposible lunatics that will shoot at anything, just because you have seen a few complete _____ _____.

If you have really stood by and watched someone butchering a roo while its still alive i would suggest that you to are just as cruel for standing there and watching and letting it happen.

On your farm that would obviosly have this magical roo proof fencing that you talk about, why dont you let some in so that your place can become a sort of reserve where these so called endangered wallabies and roos can thrive? Surely the survival of the species is more important to you than farming.

I think roos are great animals and i like seeing them bouncing around, i have never and probably never will kill a roo, i have only ever shot them with a camera. However i fully support a sustainable harvest of this valueable resource. The only real issue in my mind is making sure it stays sustainable and i think that it is at the moment and to my knowledge the numbers to be legally culled are regularly changed.


----------



## JandC_Reptiles (Oct 18, 2006)

I hate roo's.
So I will leave my opinion out of it lol


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

haha... thanks JandC.

here's a timely reminder for people to attack the IDEA not the people writing them. It's uncalled for to trash one's opinions, even if they are totally wrong 

Secondly... Magpie.. ahhh magpie... Your respite to the Feral argument didn't pay off sorry... You mentioned the Eastern Grey was located 200km from it's pack (correct collective noun???) BEFORE human intervention. So your word feral does still not apply in my opinion.

Also the thin line between feral and importing useful creatures (ie sheep, cattle etc) is one that has possibly been discussed on many occassions... But as per usual because humans put them there for our use, they're therefore not feral to start with... cats became feral when their owners (I guess) let their cats go wild...

Dingos are not native to Aussie, but have been here a darn site longer than europeans!

But they're not feral... very hard to understand that... Or are they???

This is a great thread with many opinions... but I still hear very typical opinions coming from what appear to be people who really don't give a rats behind about their native wildlife. 

But again, the blinkers seem to be on and tunnel vision guaranteed... Sweep it under the mat... kill em all... It's our fault anyway!

I can understand why to kill introduced species... but a native... i just don't get it... even with wonderful comments and some seeming so informed... I still can't see why a native animal has got to such ridiculous proportions that they're starving and needing to be shot... It's an absolute tragedy that could have and should have been avoided in the first place... I don't say I have the answer, but I do say we're in the wrong as humans!

Keep the comments coming - it's a good debate... But please keep it targeted at the questions and not the people. that is much appreciated!


----------



## Retic (Oct 18, 2006)

I think it is too late.



JandC_Reptiles said:


> I hate roo's.
> So I will leave my opinion out of it lol


----------



## dynea (Oct 18, 2006)

I was attecked by a kangaroo when i was just 14. I hate them, there mongrel animals. 
I did a WIRES co**** but decided that i didn't want to waist $600 of my own money per wallaby when you have to have 3 at a time. Then if you humanize it they want you to knock it on the head anyway. And if you don't humanize it and it gets released they will jump on someones land and get shot, LOL. It's a no win situation.
I have lived in rural australia my whole life, and i think that it depends on the area, but they can be major pests, and do need shooting. The same go's for fruit bats and flying fox's.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

dynea said:


> I was attecked by a kangaroo when i was just 14. I hate them, there mongrel animals.
> I did a WIRES co**** but decided that i didn't want to waist $600 of my own money per wallaby when you have to have 3 at a time. Then if you humanize it they want you to knock it on the head anyway. And if you don't humanize it and it gets released they will jump on someones land and get shot, LOL. It's a no win situation.
> I have lived in rural australia my whole life, and i think that it depends on the area, but they can be major pests, and do need shooting. The same go's for fruit bats and flying fox's.



Wow... you have strong opinions. To me they're disapointing - what you appear to be stating is you have more right to farm the land than the native animals have to live on it. Bats are an ABSOLUTE essential for the existence of our rain forests. They are not on;y the most beautiful creature to look at, but ironically the closest relatives to humans we have naturally in Australia. They are also incorrectly named bats, as the micro bat (such as bent wing bats) are in fact bats. Fruit bats, including flying foxes are closer to lemurs and are therefore more like monkeys and contain some 95% of our own DNA.

I really can't believe that a wildlife licenced holder has these strong opinions. I'm not at you I promise, but these opinions are disastorous to our own wildlife and to the existence of Australia's highly limited forests and grasslands.

One can not survive without the other, therefore Australians require them!

I am amazed (I feel like repeating myself) that people have these opinions.

What other animals do you dislike? 

I can understand your fear of roos, but absolutely under no circumstance a hatred that you'd kill them!

The no win situation is again typical of the anti-wildlife stance that appears throughout this thread. It all starts with US! We have to make it work! No one should shoot or kill any native animal - especially bats... they're on;y a pest because we chopped down their forests to build our own fruit forests. They were never a pest until they lost their food sources!

Well.. I'm disgusted this sort of attitude exists. but at the same I am very accepting of it as it really seems to obey my original theory.. Some australians have such a dislike for their own native animals that they would kill them rather than be educated about them.

Shame shame shame!

Please be educated and then understand what it is you're killing/disliking before you make judgements... 

Im sad :-(

But life will go on.. and even if I don't change anyone's mind, even farmer type people.. i have at least said my bit and who ever you are reading this, you read it... maybe even understood it... you didn't need to agree... but at least understand...

Bats are friends not food


----------



## richardwells (Oct 18, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*

"...if you care as much as you make out you do and witnessed these things why dont you get these ppl charged for their crimes?"

Prosecutions ! You really don't seem to know much about the bush fella. I mean to say, you can't even have someone prosecuted for bloody trespassing on your land unless they admit to it...and guess what? I have long ago given up on any chance of having people prosecuted for roos because our complaints over the years have been ignored time and time again. Roos are just held in total contempt by whole slabs of Australian Society, in particular rural areas like ours. We have on occasions phoned the police, the RSPCA and even the NPWS to stop these roo-killing parasites, and even provided their license plates and our complaints have received the same old response - not enough evidence to ensure a successful prosecution! It's really just regarded as a waste of valuable police time. And, of course this is pretty much the case, so I can understand the reticence of the authorities to get involved with matters that put the burden of proof so heavily upon the victim that it's usually just not worth all the hassle or even possible to get a case over the line. When confronted, they just trot out the old Bart Simpson defense..."Ï didn't do it, No one saw me do it, and You can't prove anything"...and everyone just sits back and buys it hook, line and cartridge-case.

We had a car load of police arrive at the scene of the previously mentioned rooicide and we were told that they would investigate the offending party. Nothing much happened of course...except that we were later advised that under no circumstances should we approach them again as they were the subject of a separate murder investigation and were regarded as extremely dangerous! Well...what a surprise. I mean to say, although we even heard what sounded like machine gun fire, I guess we could have been forgiven for thinking that a crack unit of the Country Women's Association Cooking Squad might have been responsible...

"If you have really stood by and watched someone butchering a roo while its still alive i would suggest that you to are just as cruel for standing there and watching and letting it happen."

Maybe so...but as a previously open minded bystander trying to learn the facts about whether these killers know what they are doing, all I can say is, we are not talking about people who care all that much about what an observor like me thinks. They are in effect in total charge and do what they like. My protests were just written off as the ravings of a stupid greeny. What some of these "professional" roo cullers get up to has been the subject of Parliamentary inquiries and investigations in the past, so it is no big secret...it is all on the public record for anyone who cares to look. Make no mistake about it, this is a very rough industry, that has been for a long time implicated in serious criminal activity including even murders of competitors. It is peopled largely by individuals who often have criminal backgrounds, and who in some instances would make the dregs of society look like angels as they swagger across the landscape on their merry killing spree. To "professionalize" the roo industry has been a passionate desire of Government after Government, and it is not surprising that it resists controls at every turn. I sincerely believe that it would be in everyone's interest to send them back to the killing chambers in local abattoirs where they would feel right at home amongst the blood and guts. They would still have a job doing what they like best...and our roos would only have to deal with the countless thousands of gun-weilding, pesticide-damaged farmers.

"On your farm that would obviously have this magical roo proof fencing that you talk about, why don't you let some in so that your place can become a sort of reserve where these so called endangered wallabies and roos can thrive? Surely the survival of the species is more important to you than farming."

My friend, how right you are !! I ALREADY let them in, and have done so for many years. They have the full unrestricted use of our land. They are welcome to eat what they like, where and when they like, in a place where they are protected from the viciousness of others. It is a deep honour to be in their trusting presence.

Is it really all that hard to show compassion to the roo...in light of how poorly they are treated in this country? 

Richard Wells


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

slim6y said:


> I still can't see why a native animal has got to such ridiculous proportions that they're starving and needing to be shot... It's an absolute tragedy that could have and should have been avoided in the first place... I don't say I have the answer, but I do say we're in the wrong as humans!



So what do you want to happen? do you want ppl to stop farming, stop shooting roos and start killing ppl instead?
Why are we wrong as humans? we have as much right as any creature to live on the planet.
The reason you cant see why they need to be shot is because you have obviously never seen how many there can be at times in some places. You say it could have been avoided, how could it be avoided in a realistic way? If you dont have an answer how can you say stuff like this?

Roos are currently not a major problem in Australia, the reason for this is because there numbers are controlled fairly well IMO. If there were any real signs of them being threatened then the numbers allowed to be culled would be reduced.

Since it seems to have become part of the topic i will say that there is alot of room for improvement in farming practices here and there are alot of farmers who realise this and are interested in working towards a better future.

It is very important for us to try and maintain stability and coexist with our wildlife whether you want to accept it or not, this invloves killing things.


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 18, 2006)

For every roo shot there are 2 more to take its place.They are eating themselves out of the bush as did the koalas at phillip island in vic.Get a grip on reality before you preach your Save The Roos crusade they cull brumbies in the top of aus why ? because they become a problem in plague proportions,our eco system cannot afford to support all these animals without some intervention.This is a world dominated by humans is it not? without our crops and our grass and our protective legislation you would find alot more of our Natives would be gone.Farming this country of ours started long before white man ever stepped foot on the place,have a look in the history books and see how many animals used to be native to australia,we have stopped so much destruction and yet caused so much but life is life and the way is now no 500 years ago (i wish).YOure doing your bit for the roos but to mock others for their thoughts is something you have no right to do.JMO
Odie


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

richardwells said:


> Is it really all that hard to show compassion to the roo...in light of how poorly they are treated in this country?
> 
> Richard Wells



I do have compassion for roos, I only support the legal control of roos that invloves them being killed instantly by a headshot I have no problem with this at all. Although if someone kills a roo illegally for dog food or something that doesnt bother me much either.

If i thought that roo populations where in real trouble i would also be strongly opposed to killing them.

I have a strong objection to ppl being cruel to any animal this obviously includes roos.

I dont really like how it appeared(to me anyway) that you related those ppl connected to murder charges etc. to recreational shooters. Most recreational shooters target feral species and you cant hold a gun licence if you are crazy or have a criminal record(this does include roo shooters), nor are you allowed to have machine guns.

I do realise that no one is likely to be prosectuted for killing roos in the bush, but the cruelty you talk about is a bit differant to simply killing something, i guess even then your right  looking back that was a dumb comment on my behalf.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

cris said:


> So what do you want to happen? do you want ppl to stop farming, stop shooting roos and start killing ppl instead?
> Why are we wrong as humans? we have as much right as any creature to live on the planet.
> The reason you cant see why they need to be shot is because you have obviously never seen how many there can be at times in some places. You say it could have been avoided, how could it be avoided in a realistic way? If you dont have an answer how can you say stuff like this?
> 
> ...



Hey thanks for the input... TO be honest roos weren't my only major concern. They were part and parcel of the aussie native fauna and flora that is constantly being targeted in some way or respect. Such as the bats.

I love some of the new farming practices that encourage wildlife to blossom and be non-inhibitive to us as humans... 

I never once stated there was a realistic answer to these problems, and I KNOW all about the starving roos. It's very sad. Honestly, it's horrible what they go through. 

I wished it never happens. We can turn a blind eye on it.

But even here in Cairns, at Trinity park, where i have photographed in excess of 100 roos... Soon, their land will be turned into complexes and duplexes and appartments and housing... Where will the 100s of roos go? Die of starvation? be shot... Be relocated (in this thread this is noted as a very bad alternative and less humane than shooting them... which I find hard to believe but can accept moving is traumatic).

There is no realistic answer... Better farming, better education, better laws... ??? I'm at an end to know what to do... this is why I set up this thread. Surely there's an alternative. Surely people must know better ways... 

I need to take a lot of time to read these comments over and over again. Some are deeply interesting. Others seem to skim the surface and maybe go a little over board in othe rdirections. But all seem to have valid arguments for and against.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 18, 2006)

*Yes, Kill Ferals AND Save Natives*

No not dumb at all...this can be a very emotional issue, where every opinion has legs...and who knows where one particular view may lead over another.

Anyway, it might come as a bit of a surprise to know that I am someone who was once widely involved in feral animal control by firearms, and I am in total agreement with the need to ELIMINATE all ferals. I know the power of the gun and how in the wrong hands it can easily be far more trouble than it is worth. Obviously, only the sane and reasonable should be the only ones permitted to own firearms, but from my observations a lot of people have guns who are either unlicensed or criminally insane (or both).

I should also express my understanding of how even the most experienced can make near fatal mistakes when it comes to the use of firearms. I mean, the constant use of them can engender a rather casual almost carefree attitude at times that can be very dangerous indeed. As a point of reference, I would recount a past survey that I was on for the NPWS in NSW. I had been contracted to collect representative samples of various vertebrates for a scientific study on the effects of pesticides on wildlife by the Depts of Agriculture, Fisheries and the National Parks and Wildlife Service. As a professional field biologist I was charged with the task of collecting 10 of each species of a range of targeted species across a vast area of the State. Each was euthenased humanely following capture by injection of Sodium Pentabarbitone, a very distasteful job, but nevertheless, a critically important one for the long-term survival of not only the fauna but also the people inhabiting the study region. When it came to the roos, I just drove the roads and picked up the road-kills. On the other hand, one of the NPWS workers decided that fresh kills were better (even though this was not really necessary) and convinced the head of the team to bring his rifle along so that he could show us the easy way to collect roos. Upon arrival at the study site on a prominant cotton farm he immediately departed and started off hunting the roos by shooting the Farm Kookaburra, a Swamp Harrier (which he had to finish-off by choking it to death), a black duck, and three roos - none of which were clean kills. Upon his return to the vehicle, he climbed into the back of the land-cruiser were I was already sitting, and his firearm discharged, sending a 222 bullet flying past my head and blowing out the window beside me! 
Now, even though I was a very experienced firearm user myself, he was the "professional" and of course you couldn't tell him anything at all. I was so experienced with guns that I wouldn't risk using them in the presence of a field party, because there are just too many people to keep an eye on, as well as look for wildlife. But I know people make mistakes so easily with guns despite their experience. Sometimes you just get over-whelmed with the whole shooting experience and raw instincts can take over. Something similar even once happened to me...and it was really surprising how I reacted to an otherwise innocent event. At the time my wife and I were walking up the driveway to check the mail, when all of a sudden, I heard the unmistakeable swish of an incoming .308, whereupon I instantly slammed her onto the ground and threw myself over her to avoid the hit...but when I looked around it was only an attacking magpie swooping us !......I didn't bother telling my wife what had made me do it...and to this day she still thinks I'm a just frisky devil at heart....

Richard Wells


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

OdessaStud said:


> For every roo shot there are 2 more to take its place.They are eating themselves out of the bush as did the koalas at phillip island in vic.Get a grip on reality before you preach your Save The Roos crusade they cull brumbies in the top of aus why ? because they become a problem in plague proportions,our eco system cannot afford to support all these animals without some intervention.This is a world dominated by humans is it not? without our crops and our grass and our protective legislation you would find alot more of our Natives would be gone.Farming this country of ours started long before white man ever stepped foot on the place,have a look in the history books and see how many animals used to be native to australia,we have stopped so much destruction and yet caused so much but life is life and the way is now no 500 years ago (i wish).YOure doing your bit for the roos but to mock others for their thoughts is something you have no right to do.JMO
> Odie



Who is this directed at???

If it is me... I don't have a 'save the roos' mentality... i have a 'it's our mistake, let's make it right' mentality. I don't care if it's roos or the carnivorous snail of NZ... they have their claim to the land, and we need to co-exist and do so sustainabley.

This world is dominated by humans, strangely enough I kind of like it that way, but I am not sure much of nature feels this way. We have a right, both morale and ethical to keep it right. 

I certainly never mocked anyone for their thoughts... was rather disapointed that these thoughts exist without education... but I seriously hope no one was offended or upset if they believe I mocked them. 

I actually hope you weren't talking about me to be honest... Because of all things I have done, was never talked down to anyone... I can be disapointed that an attitude occurs, right? it's just me. For the time I will assume the comment was directed at someone else.


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 18, 2006)

I hope none of you people would consider killing rats or cockroaches which infested your houses. It's our fault for changing the place, they only live in our houses because we put them there; they don't deserve to die. I hope you don't take action if your body is infested by worms or your hair by lice, they are only doing what they know and are not to blame - their colonies are only present due to your irresponsible and selfish refusal to kill yourself. There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, everyone stop breathing. Quick!

I've stopped feeding my snakes rats, they only eat carrots now. Carrots which are farmed on land which used to support kangaroos! Oh no! The hypocrisy! I'll try to convert them to feeding on used tyres which would otherwise go to land fill. I'll let you all know how I go.

Oh no! I'm using a computer, it's using electricity, I'm destroying the planet!

Enjoy your lamb chops everyone. Poor little lambies :cry: Enjoy living in your houses made of wood, eating plants farmed on land which has been cleared away, no longer supporting the ecosystems which once thrived there. Keep making your way around in vehicles powered by the burning of fuels.

In an ideal world, nothing would ever die for any reason, but the reality is that if we want to live, we will kill animals and plants, even if it is indirectly through the use of fossil fuels, breathing, eating, drinking, taking up space, producing bodily waste...

My favourite animal is the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, but I am not too stubborn to admit that there is a clear need to cull them in many areas. There are more now than before white people turned up, we have changed the land in ways which allows them to build up the population densities to levels which harm other native species, as well as our agricultural efforts. 

I'll try to give one simple example in a way which almost anyone should be able to easily understand. In many areas, kangaroo numbers were limited by water availability. I won't get into the physiological explanation, but kangaroos can eat very low quality food and thrive on it if water is available (animals like cows and sheep will die on such food, no matter how much of it they have, even with unlimited water). Our farming practises include dotting the landscape with dams, giving kangaroos unlimited water, which means that unlike a natural situation, they are able to eat all of the food available to them, which makes it unavailable to anything else. Yes, in this case (which is common in arid regions, which Australia isn't short of), the dams are causing the problems, yes, they are human-caused problems, but that doesn't help the follow on damage caused (which includes negative effects on other native species), which can be prevented by culling.

It is completely ridiculous to expect that the human caused changes can be reversed (if you disagree, feel free to get the ball rolling by leaving the country or killing yourself - what's that? You're not going to? No, that's not a surprise), so unfortunately we need to take active measures to ensure that further damage isn't caused. It's very easy to look at these issues on the surface and get upset about killing a beautiful animal such as a kangaroo, but taking a passive stance causes much more harm.


----------



## Earthling (Oct 18, 2006)

I havent read all this thread..toooo long. but has anyone mentioned the killing of 'dingos' in Australia?
As i understand it there are licenced doggers who get money for each dog they kill. 
Now these dogs are actually dingos. But.... and this is the thing.... they are maybe 90% dingo and 10% introduced dog. Or maybe even 50/50. Thing is, on the mainland, where this is happening, there is no 100% dingo anymore so all dingos are now classified as dogs. 
If these 'dogs' were 100% dingos would the shooting of them been allowed as easily as it has?
This shooting is in very marginal country which is so busted**** it should never been farmed in the first place.

Just for the record Ive shot many a roo, however i used them to eat and dog food. it was always in areas where there was a high density of roo.
I was proud to eat what i killed, rather then let someone else kill what i wanted to eat.


----------



## cris (Oct 18, 2006)

well said Sdaji, i couldnt agree more. Well actually i like red roos better than grey ones and i wouldnt be able to choose a favorite animal without listing 50 or more. I hope ppl will pay more attention to someone with your education than they did to me.


----------



## snakes4me2 (Oct 18, 2006)

Sdaji said:


> I hope none of you people would consider killing rats or cockroaches which infested your houses. It's our fault for changing the place, they only live in our houses because we put them there; they don't deserve to die. I hope you don't take action if your body is infested by worms or your hair by lice, they are only doing what they know and are not to blame - their colonies are only present due to your irresponsible and selfish refusal to kill yourself. There is too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, everyone stop breathing. Quick!
> 
> I've stopped feeding my snakes rats, they only eat carrots now. Carrots which are farmed on land which used to support kangaroos! Oh no! The hypocrisy! I'll try to convert them to feeding on used tyres which would otherwise go to land fill. I'll let you all know how I go.
> 
> ...


 

WELL SAID *clapping hands* couldnt agree more


----------



## Mayo (Oct 18, 2006)

The only solution that has been found so far is regular cull's and nutill someone comes up with a better idea this will continue. We are losing many native species for many reasons, saddly we created most of them. But it doesn't change the fact that culling is the most practical solution. We created the problem and now we are doing our best to keep it in check. 

Feral animals are and should most rightly be killed on sight, they are a pest. We have introduced many species to Aust that have done a lot of damage, but we have also caused many native species to do a lot of damage to the country as well. We need to rectify this problem as best we can, and the answer at this point is to cull. Most of the pest species introduced happened befor I was born so I had no chance of stopping them, but I will fight to ensure that less mistakes are made now.

I saw some of the cull at Pucka and saw nothing wrong with it. I have also done many culls on my parents property's. The people that came to do my parents cull were not bad people by any means. Some of my friends did it on there breaks from UNI to make extra cash. Don't let your bad experiances cloud your judgement on the people who do the culls, your area might be one that has the wrong type of people doing the work but our's have the right type of people.

All my opinion and I could be wrong but to sit by and do nothing is not going to help the matter. Plague proportions need to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and practical solution sought.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 18, 2006)

Hey, this is definitely the stance I am talking about Sdaji.... 

To be totally honest with you... I'm not some environmentalist hippie.. I just took an underdog's side to get emotions going so people write what i am considering an important topic of modern culture. it's great to get so many people's opinions.

But sadly, as it happens... i don't kill flies, roaches, spiders and other nasties that come into my house. I laugh at this myself... But i... haha... relocate them... Im not kidding. I figured that i would run my life as pesticide free as possible... So no sprays in the house. the reason being for one I had fish tanks, and fly sprays are not recommended. For two, my daughter is to grow up respecting all animals... no matter how big or small. now that does not say not to kill them, but it is to say have a respect for them. no about them, understand them... To at least th ebest of our knowledge.

I am lucky in my house that pests are at an all time minimum.

I use companion planting... and I except some crop losses.

I feed my snake on mice... and I certainly won't be sarcastic and feed my snake carrots... Life is life... But to no suprise... It's humans responsibility.

My initial argument is:

We change our environment to suit our lifestyle... But what we could do is change our lifestyle to suit our environment.

No one said it was easy. It takes forward thinking. But we need to look to a sustainable future... would you not agree?

We need to get balance... Difficult to assertain maybe... And with economies etc it's probably impossible to assertain.

I am of the opinion that culling is a neserscary evil... I don't like it... I am actually at the same, contradicting, against it because of the cause... But I see no easier way out either. I wished there was.

But attitudes also need to change... 

I think we have also circled around roos way to long in this thread... as they're the easy target here. So I guess they're easy to talk about

I have found statistics that I found interesting... It doesn't change the way I do things... but I just think it's interesting...

R. L. Metcalf suggests that crop losses to insects remain as high today as they were before the wide-spread usage of insecticides.He cites a USDA estimate of annual losses for six major crops treated with insecticides at 11.3% in 1900-04, whereas David Pimentel estimates the average annual loss for these crops in 1995 at 13%. The suggestion has been made that the use of modern chemicals has been counterproductive -- pesticides control insect pests but destroy beneficial insects; they led to the abandonment of effective non-chemical control practices; and they led to resistant pest populations that continue to cause crop losses. By focusing solely on crop losses resulting from insects, Drs. Metcalf and Pimentel do a disservice to the enormous positive contribution that modern synthetic chemicals have made to the agricultural food supply.

Sorry for the copy and pasting... It's the mini version of what happens to macroinverterbrates when we change something in a closed ecosystem....

It's hard to find these examples... but our attitudes need to change in order to stick with our sustainable cultures - if they are indeed to be sustainable.

I don't think human effects can be reversed yet... but I think it's only a matter of time before we're forced to... perhaps not in our lifetime, or even our childrens, but most likely within the next 150 years there is going to have to be dramatic changes and we're going to have to stop ostriching, stop saying it's impossible and start actually doing...

Can't wait till oil runs out!

This blurb was made a little sleep deprived... But the jist of it is our attitudes will need to change at some time, because in our current status we're not sustainable... 

ps.. I eat all red meats, including roo... and it's damned tastey... I have also eaten crocodile... also tastey...


----------



## Hickson (Oct 19, 2006)

Not gonna contribute to the roo debate one way or the other, but I will make a couple of points:

The word 'feral' refers to a domesticated animal that has gone wild (eg. cats, dogs, horses, goats, pigs etc.). If the animal in question was never a domesticated species, and it is outside it's home range then it is 'introduced'.




slim6y said:


> Fruit bats, including flying foxes are closer to lemurs and are therefore more like monkeys and contain some 95% of our own DNA.



No they're not.

This was a theory proposed in the 1980s, and in the mid 90's the basic premise was found to be flawed, and the idea was abandoned. Fruit Bats and Micro bats are both derived from a common ancestor and recent molecular evidence suggests that the closest relatives to the Chiroptera are the South American camelids.

Incidentally, before the primate-fruit bat relationship theory, one of the evolution theories for Bats was a relationship with Flying Lemurs or Colugos, a different order altogether.



Hix


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 19, 2006)

...and so the thread went off topic...



Hix: Um, am I misreading you or are you saying that Lemurs aren't Primates? (I didn't bother getting into the issue earlier in the thread, as along with the definition of the word 'feral', it seemed a bit too trivial to address. I suppose you've just put a straw on the camel's back  ). The word 'feral' is colloquially ("incorrectly") used so often now that it seems pointless to correct anyone.

I was very upset when DNA testing disproved the Flying-fox Lemeur hypothesis. I wanted native flying Lemurs!  :cry:  :lol:


----------



## Hickson (Oct 19, 2006)

Sdaji said:


> ...and so the thread went off topic...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I know it's off-topic but somebody else breought it up, and this old theory has been mentioned on the site before. People are gonna read it and believe it.

Anyway, Flying Lemurs, or Colugos, are not Primates. They belong to an order called the Dermoptera. And the Dermoptera, these days, are considered to be closely related to the Primata.

Lemurs, however, are definitely Primata. Sub-order Prosimii, Family Lemuridae.

This is a Lemur (Ringtailed Lemur)






This is a Flying Lemur





And this is why they are called Flying Lemurs (they actually glide)








Hix


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

I'd like to add, as the bringer up of the topic, that it is NOT off topic about the bats... It was stating that they're not pests/feral or any of the other and they're natives to this country... Therefore culling, killing or destroying bats is also not an option.

Seeing as the bats contribute heavily to the survival of the rainforest.

I haven't been up-to-date with the lemur/bat relationship. But now that this theory appears 'disproved' I need to go tell my source who on;y recently told me the lemur/bat closeness.

So apology accepted for the 'off-topic' comment and let's continue... The question is to cull or not to cull.. it never once stated in the question it was ot do with roos...

Another prime example I brought up was that of crocodiles. One person asked what good can a crocodile do for a city like Cairns... Simple.. Tourism... Removal of crocs is absolutely unneserscary... Signs are in place to warn people. And if people are stupid enough to enter the crocs domain, then the risk should be theirs.

The crocs shouldn't be culled unless for health reasons... eg... Disease (which apparently there is - hopefully it doesn't enter to TNQ or are we too late?).

Again... I went to bed with these thoughts.... (last night)

It's not what we have to change physically to start with... it's our initail attitudes that have to change. 

The 'it can't be done' attitude simply must change for a sustainable Australia and infact world!


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

I want to add another point about the bats:

My statement (which later appear incorrect, but will verify this over the next week) was that bats contain some 95% of our DNA making them Australia's closest native to humans (please note this is NOT proven and I can not actually justify this comment as of yet).

But the point is... You wouldn't kill a human for being a pest and eating your fruit. So why something that is 95% human? Just because they look so different?

To add to this point my daughter (100% human, although again not proven but most likely consists of 100% human DNA) exhibited fairly similar behaviour to bats. Firstly she pooped everywhere and secondly she went around devastating my strawberry crops. Altough she was sick afterwards.... The point is she was a pest, but we tolerated her... she since has grown up to be a very fine upstanding non-crop-destroying citizen. The same can not be said of bats. 

However, the fact that I believed, at the time of printing, that bats were 95% human then therefore should not be culled as a pest was the original point.

Crop protection strategies, replanting bat food trees, and land use strategies need to be incorperated to live with this wonderful animal. And they are wonderful! I strongly dislike their pest status and the only good bat is a dead bat status. I hope these views change for the people who have them.

Visit the BatReach Centre in Kuranda to have your eyes opened just a little about these magnificent creatures.


----------



## Hickson (Oct 19, 2006)

I think Sdaji's comment about off-topic was directed at me, for focussing on a point not related to the culling issue.

And I'd be surprised if bats share 95% of out DNA. That suggests that the entire bat genome has been mapped. To my knowledge only the human, mouse and chicken genomes have had that done.



Hix


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

Hix said:


> I think Sdaji's comment about off-topic was directed at me, for focussing on a point not related to the culling issue.
> 
> And I'd be surprised if bats share 95% of out DNA. That suggests that the entire bat genome has been mapped. To my knowledge only the human, mouse and chicken genomes have had that done.
> 
> ...



Sorry about that accusation hix.... Ummmm... I don't know about the genome mapping... I am repeating sources I have heard... So your point is well taken. I need about a week to re-prove or disprove my source and then we can all live happily ever after...

My science field is physics/chemistry, not genetics. Although I did study fungi genetics at uni... but was rather bored with it.... But the only thing I can say is we're closer related to fungi than plants


----------



## Hickson (Oct 19, 2006)

I'd be prepared to accept that humans are more closely related to bats than fungi!



Hix


----------



## dynea (Oct 19, 2006)

Hi guys, It looks like a good debate so far. 
I think I need to clear things up a little bit. 
I never said that all areas of roos and Bats are a problem, and so i wouldn't like to hear that they were culled in all areas. I'm not even saying that I personally would cull these animals, I would leave that up to the propper authoritys. 
There is a town in QLD called Charters Towers and every year millions of bats come into the main park in town and overpopulate the area, to the point of a fowl smell from the dying bats and poop, and terrible noise at all hours of the night and day. It sends the town crazy for the months that they cant do anything about these animals that become pests every year for months at a time.
I do not hate bats i think that they are cute. 
And although i may have stated that I hate roos, I don't hate them. I was attacked buy a roo that had been rescued as a baby and humanized. It was 6ft tall and i was 5ft and 47kg. I came off second best, when all i was doing was walking past the house that it was living at. I didn't do a WIRES course because i hate australian native animals i did it because i care, but i couldn't afford the costs, and i couldn't handle the idea that i would have to put an animal down if it wasn't affraid of me. Even though my pesonal experiance would show good reason for not humanizing them.

I also Know for a fact that Australians arn't going to cull there native wildlife to any point where they will become a threatened species. We do love our native wildlife, there is just a point where even the drought has not stopped these animals from over populating themselfs.


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 19, 2006)

Who is this directed at???

If it is me... I don't have a 'save the roos' mentality... i have a 'it's our mistake, let's make it right' mentality. I don't care if it's roos or the carnivorous snail of NZ... they have their claim to the land, and we need to co-exist and do so sustainabley.

No it wasnt directed at you more so Richard Wells if anyone at all.

Cheers Odie


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

OdessaStud said:


> Who is this directed at???
> 
> If it is me... I don't have a 'save the roos' mentality... i have a 'it's our mistake, let's make it right' mentality. I don't care if it's roos or the carnivorous snail of NZ... they have their claim to the land, and we need to co-exist and do so sustainabley.
> 
> ...



Thanks odie... appreciated... incidentally the carnivorous snail of NZ is in a bad prediciment... there's mineable land under there very small habitat. And only a few thousand of these wee pets still exist. relocating isn't an option as they're 'carnivourous' and their food source is very limited in distribution too.... Sad sad sad... mining companies say... fooey to snails.. so do many people... but if you look at these magnificent creatures you would be suprised... so it's not just cute cuddly (or attacking) roos... It also goes down as deep as moluscs...

Dynea: Sorry I thinki might have been over the top... I didn't direct the 'hate' statements at you - but at a general populous. 

I know all about chateris towers... But you see it's the attitude... ok.. smell yucky.. poop.. youckier.. but bats should be treated with respect... turn it into a tourist attraction... Come see the 2 million bats... You'd be suprised... A good David Attenborough film, followed by a few "travel Oz" shows... Before long Chaters Towers comes the place to be for the months of the bat... A highly respected, wonderful creature... 

See... it is an attitude... You might not say that if it was ulysees (sp??) butterflies... But they would (or their offspring) eat more and damage more than any bat ever will.... I think it all lies in an attitude...

the WIRES course, i know nothing about sorry... Can't comment.. but it seems a little off if you have to ice a roo because it likes you....

Culling is also not meant to be species genocide, but in fact meant to encourage healthy populations of the said species... no one in aussie, i hope, would kill all natives of a species to satisfy their farming needs... If there are such people then they need real education...

i totally agree with the no humanising... I think a healthy fear of animals by humans and a healthy fear of humans by animals is very important. The cassowary is one such case.

where you say 'we do love our wildlife' it's not that I believe contrary to this point, but evidence suggests some aussies are less willing to accept that their wildlife is some of the most diverse, and wonderful in the world. And without them, Aussie wouldn't be Aussie!


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



OdessaStud said:


> For every roo shot there are 2 more to take its place....
> 
> I'm sorry to say Odie that this is unsubstantiated by any credible scientific study. On the contrary my position is totally supported by the millions of rotting carcasses that litter the Australian landscape, and the blindly obvious decline in the majority of macropod species over the last 30 years determined from both my personal field observations as well as virtually everyone else I know who are experienced enough in field biology to really know what they are talking about.
> 
> ...




I have never intentionally mocked anyone for their thoughts, although some quite readily mock me ! What may appear as mocking, should really be interpreted for what it is...a total and unbridled contempt for the stupidity, wickedness and waste of a priceless heritage...that's all.

Richard Wells


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

We stuffed the country I get it. But now some arte trying to fix the problem as best we can. Doing nothing and blaming people for mistakes that were done befor we were borne doesn't help. If a cull of a species is required to keep it in check because of the way tings are now then guess what, it's going to be done untill someone comes up with a better solution. 

Introduced species are doing a lot of damage, no arguement there from anyone I should think, but some of our natives are now doing damage and yes it is our fault's but instead of sitting on our hands and saying how noble they look we have to stop them from doing damage as well.

Qoute
"I have never intentionally mocked anyone for their thoughts, although some quite readily mock me ! What may appear as mocking, should really be interpreted for what it is...a total and unbridled contempt for the stupidity, wickedness and waste of a priceless heritage...that's all."

Richard Wells

Yes I have mocked you Richard but you have mocked a lot of people in this thread, and in an arguement like this I take no personal offence. You are generalising people and abusing people regularly,( take a look at your last post) so I say practise what you preach. 

I'm not trying to mock you here but can I ask what it is that you farm Richard well's. My Grandfather (handed down to my father) had a sheep farm, my mother breeds horses, and my step father has a dairy farm.


----------



## Retic (Oct 19, 2006)

Speaking of mucking things up there is a development not far from us that backs onto a local Koala sanctuary. There was a hell of a stink about the whole thing but obviously big business won out in the end, a week or so ago the bulldozers moved in and ripped down every tree so they could build another 100 or so houses. On the very first day of destruction there was a dead koala on the road and another stranded and bewildered in a tree isolated from it's stomping ground. 
This apparently is progress, we seem to have an endless capacity to destroy, it is human nature. Animals get pushed out of their land and are then destroyed when they encoach on human territory.
It's quite amazing what 20 million people are able to do to a huge country in a very short time.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

Things are changing but very slowly. We do need to change things and proper solutions are required, as well as a change in peoples way of thinking.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

boa said:


> Speaking of mucking things up there is a development not far from us that backs onto a local Koala sanctuary. There was a hell of a stink about the whole thing but obviously big business won out in the end, a week or so ago the bulldozers moved in and ripped down every tree so they could build another 100 or so houses. On the very first day of destruction there was a dead koala on the road and another stranded and bewildered in a tree isolated from it's stomping ground.
> This apparently is progress, we seem to have an endless capacity to destroy, it is human nature. Animals get pushed out of their land and are then destroyed when they encoach on human territory.
> It's quite amazing what 20 million people are able to do to a huge country in a very short time.



This really upsets me... But when I think about it, hypocritically, my house is built where a woodland forest once stood.... even though swampy, i bet my area had some wonderful and beautiful ecosystems... I rent the house... don't own it... But my eco footprint is remarkabley small... But what we have done is done... what are we doing to prevent it happening from now needs doing!


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Mocking People or Roo Slaughter?*

"You are generalising people and abusing people regularly,( take a look at your last post) so I say practise what you preach."

I thought I have been very specific actually. And I most certainly do "practice what I preach"..And as for REGULARLY abusing people I must say that seems to be a little over-reactive - and not a little unfair - given that I have hardly posted anything at all on this site ! 

If you think my few brief opinions amount to REGULAR ABUSE then I suppose I must be more careful with what I say so that the more sensitive flowers don't wilt under the spotlight. It is important to realise though (without mocking you) that some might feel more upset that I have cut a little too close to the bone and exposed their own guilt for past actions.

"I'm not trying to mock you here but can I ask what it is that you farm Richard Wells. My Grandfather (handed down to my father) had a sheep farm, my mother breeds horses, and my step father has a dairy farm"

Our properties have all been used for sheep, cattle and horses, but now I have completely converted them back to native flora (for the investigation of potential pharmaceuticals) and of course the roos ! My father, grandfather, great grandfather and great great grandfather were a mixture of shearers and cedar-getters. Since the arrival of my family in Australia on the 2nd Fleet over two hundred years ago we have all been at the forefront of the destruction of Australia through the necessities of survival - and I am determined to make a change for the better - by totally protecting all Kangaroos and Wallabies from the recreational and commercial slaughter that stains the entire country.

Yours Unmockingly,

Richard Wells


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

cull away!


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



whiteyluvsrum said:


> cull away!



Well, before any more culling takes place, the following may be of interest...

Bias in Kangaroo Culling 
by Dr. David Croft, School of Biological Science,
UNSW, Sydney NSW 2052.



Large males - prime targets Kirkpatrick and Nance (1985) clearly showed a strong bias towards males in the commercial kangaroo harvest in Queensland (Fig. 1). The result was strongest in the smallest of the three species, the common wallaroo, but equally present in red and grey kangaroo culls. Pople (1996) showed that this trend has continued into the 90’s with a clear bias towards older males. If we compare Kirkpatrick and Nances’ average values for red kangaroos against the proportional representation of male age classes in an unharvested population at Fowlers Gap station (Edwards et al. 1994) then clearly 4-9 year olds are strongly selected for in the cull (Fig. 2). The consequence may be the virtual elimination of males in this and older age classes as Pople (1996) found at Amaroo station in 1992.

see Figure 1. The proportion of males in the commercial harvest of three species of macropodids in Queensland: 1978 to 1983. (From data presented in Kirkpatrick & Nance 1985).

see Figure 2. (1) The average proportion of red kangaroos in three age classes harvested in Queensland from 1978 to 1983 (data from Kirkpatrick & Nance 1985) relative to (2) the proportion of males in the same three classes from an unharvested population at Fowlers Gap in north-west NSW (data from Edwards et al. 1994).

The current objectives of Commonwealth approved kangaroo management programs are:

Mitigate damage to farming and grazing properties 
Maintain viable populations of harvested species throughout their natural range 
Maintain a sustainable kangaroo products industry. 
These objectives do not explicitly address the aims of long-term wildlife conservation (eg. MacNab 1991) which are:

Conserve genetic diversity 
Sustain natural selective forces 
Maintain the whole range of species interactions. 
Thus a clamour of concerned voices has been raised as to whether the imposition of a strong artificial selective force (the practices of the commercial kangaroo industry) is compatible with the long-term conservation of kangaroos across their range.

Should we be concerned? The short answer is that we know insufficient about the genetics of the species in the commercial harvest to determine whether appropriate genetic diversity is being conserved. If a ‘good gene’ is being eliminated in the cull then we would not know until those individuals missing it are tested by some vagary in their environment and found wanting.

Even so our knowledge of kangaroo mating systems and evolutionary theory (especially mate choice and sexual selection) prompt some alarm. 

‘Good’ genes 
Research into the mating systems and reproductive success of red kangaroos (Moss 1995) and common wallaroos (Ashworth 1995) at Fowlers Gap in the far north-west of NSW, and eastern grey kangaroos (Jarman & Southwell 1986; Walker 1996) at Wallaby Creek in the north-east has produced two relevant findings.

Reproductive success is a complex interaction between size, age and condition of males and females; a very few individuals enjoy high success, most miss out.

Amongst males, the largest and fittest fight their way to dominion over mating rights to most of the females in their local population. To achieve this status they have grown for around ten years and on average survived at least one drought. Where the opportunity arises, females will selectively seek out and mate with these alpha males, and attempt to thwart, often successfully, the mating attempts of lesser males. Females advertise their oestrus widely, often moving to the margins of their home ranges with the consequence of attracting a bevy of competing male suitors, amongst which a ‘superior’ mate will emerge.

As figure 2 shows, relatively few males in the unharvested Fowlers Gap population live long enough to challenge for alpha status. If we then impose an artificial selective pressure through the current regime of male-biased ‘top-down’ culling fewer still will survive and the result is severe disruption to the natural social organisation, changes to population dynamics and the introduction of unnatural selective forces.

Why? Breeding males will become smaller and younger, more common than would other wise be the case, and those that would otherwise not breed. Likewise, the taking of large females leads to breeding females that are smaller, younger and inexperienced. Culled populations obviously become more female biased, but also sinks for dispersing, under-sized individuals with high relative energy demands. There is strong selection for small body size. We lose genotypes that have been strongly tested by the environment because survival to an old age is a matter of good foraging skills, disease resistance, competitive abilities and, of course, chance.

In choosing a mate, an male or female cannot to do much about chance but can assess the qualities of a potential partner’s phenotype to look for correlates of ‘good genes’ that his/her offspring might inherit. We have sound behavioural evidence that female kangaroos do just this, although it is more difficult to prove genetic benefits in long-lived species because we cannot study sufficient generations. We also have some evidence that males may neglect poor breeders amongst the female population.

Does it really matter if we cull out these older, larger more ‘desirable’ individuals? Any male reaching sexual maturity at around 3 years will produce more than enough sperm to fertilise all the females in his home range. True, but pastoralists do not maintain the wool quality of a merino flock or the meat quality of a cattle herd by letting any male breed. No, they choose stud rams and bulls with desirable characteristics that sustain a wool and beef industry. Natural selection operates, perhaps more slowly than selective breeding, in the same way.

Could the commercial harvest of kangaroos eliminate ‘good genes’ in the kangaroo populations? Some would argue that a cull of 15-20% should leave plenty of copies of ‘good genes’ in the population. True, if the cull selected targets at random, but clearly this is not the case. The cull may effectively take close to 100% of large males. We do not know what is happening because this is not a priority of the kangaroo management programs but we should be nervous!

END QUOTE


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

we kill things, thats what humans do.
if its not ourselfs, its animals.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

I have only seen your name through this thread Richard but take a look back in nearly every post someone is an idoit or stupid etc etc. That moral high horse and talking down at people still doesn't address the problem does it. You are mocking people, and you don't need to apoligise for it your trying to get your point across as am I. This thread is based on personal beliefs, and a lot of emotion is involved. I asked what you farmed so that I would know a little more about your back ground, so I could understand a little more where you were coming from, and wrote a little of mine so you might understand me a little more. As for being a sensitive flower, I'll sit here and take all you can give because once again you have not given any other practical solutions just more hot air. My family goes back that far to and the necessity to survive is still there for some. Mock me all you like Richard, tell us all about the big bad slaughter man. You might have met a few bad one's but I know plenty of good ones.

Total protection of Kangaroos is not protecting nature as a whole we need to look at the bigger picture. Plague proportions of wild life was naturally culled prior to man. Drought should have decimated much of the wild life at the moment but all the water points put out for cattle etc have kept them better hydrated. centre pivot's etc have provided permenant feed. We don't burn off as regularly as we should anymore, many native tree's only seed after they have been burned out. This country burned regularly prior to our coming and yes many native animals died during those fires, but are we helping nature by stopping them or are we hindering? 

The over population has lead to disease and hunger. You could walk right up to them at pucka most were blind. They were covered in ticks, and there regalness gone. Is that any way to leave an animal. I don't just mean one or two there were thousands like this. Even the diseases they had were not stopping them from breeding. They are reproducing to fast to be controlled and the damage they have caused to the landscape will take decades to fix. They are dead everywhere on fences, under trees, out in the open something had to be done and after they and culled 30,000 you still couldn't tell the differance.


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

i can back the pucka one up, ended alot of [deleted by mods] up roos with the back of a shovel.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

That is an interesting article Richard and perhaps the target sizes, and target sex needs to be altered but the problem still remains. How do we stop over population of native species


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

Whiteyluvsrum what's your ECN


----------



## slim6y (Oct 19, 2006)

Richard... that is a well taken peice of information...

I always find it funny that for one study a further study proves it wrong... 

For example... Many scientists believe electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile phones and power lines is harmful... But many scientist also believe no harm can be done from this type of radiation... The irony to this is that the scientist that believe harm is done come from a group set up initially by environmentalists. The latter a group from elctricity and mobile phone companies... 

It's who ever has the money or can make money out of it...

In your quote it sounds like the environmentalist side coming out... and many truths appear in that commentary... which i admit I skimmed as I have some work that needs to be done... but will return to readi it 100% soon...

There would be another quote from the kangaroo eating board statinbg exactly the opposite.

But it has long been known killing the largest of a species is likely to destroy the species... Fish are a prime example... We have continually employed the "throw back undersized fish" and "keep the larger ones"

Reason... Smaller ones will grow up to become larger...

Irony... Smaller ones are less likely to breed and therefore populations become limited. Larger ones are more likely to survive and breed and insure continual survival of the species. 

Again... Someone seems to have it wrong... Perhaps... It would appear keeping the smaller and more platable fish would be more profitable in the long run allowing larger stocks to continue to breed with there excellent genetics that got them living 60 years or more in the first place!

Why is it done the other way? Because we buy fish by the kg not by the flavour... Larger fish therefore fetch larger dollars... We need to turn this around and sell by quality not quantity. 

This is EASILY done.. but requires a new approach and new legislation. It's not impossible.

The same applies to kangaroo meat and culling.

Thank you for your input to everyone... on the most this is a highly emotional topic that does involve a little tip toeing around to avoid hurting people's feelings. On the whole this has been exceptionally done... But bear it in mind.. it's a topic we are discussing not a person... 

Thank you for continuing with many more inputs onto this topic. I am forming a great bit of research from this and I believe many others are too.


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

dont know? not a pogue, ill have to look it up.
im in mortars, 2.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

The limit's on fish go both ways for many species, you can't take the small ones but once they reach a certain breeding size they are safe. Same as prawns you can only fish certain areas each year so that other areas have time to re-populate. It's the sustainable fishing industry initiative. The fishery's no that if they didn't get it worked out soon they wouldn't have anything left to fish. It's been very susessful and catch sizes are getting bigger due to the changes


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

238?


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

My ECN'S are: 
109
096
141 current


----------



## whiteyluvsrum (Oct 19, 2006)

i dont know what any of em mean?


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Mayo said:


> "..They are dead everywhere on fences, under trees, out in the open something had to be done and after they and culled 30,000 you still couldn't tell the differance".




Look, firstly I haven't called you personally a sensitive flower, nor have I intentionally mocked you.

Secondly, in your quoted example of the Puckapunya cull, this was clearly not the work of the unwarranted slaughter of the recreational shooter - and that is what I am opposing. Nowhere have I criticised the humane destruction of roos as a result of sound evidence and biological necessity - such as the conditions that you mention above. What I am not willing to accept however, is the fallacious argument that there is an over-population of roos that is resulting in the destruction of Australian ecosystems, and that this alleged over-population is justification in itself for their extermination by recreational and commercial operatives.

I won't go into Who did What and Where at Pucka, but suffice it to say that elsewhere the Kangaroo Slaughter Industry has been very quick to hop onto the Cull Bandwagon to add more meat to the bottom line...and the bottom line is the eventual extermination of the roo in my opinion. As I said, please don't confuse my criticism of the recreational and commercial roo killing industries, with humane necessity...and humane is a word I wouldný mormally use when discussing this issue.

And this is just not my opinion...Take the following opinion from a reformed Kangaroo Shooter who has to his great credit attempted to set matters straight:

Quote/

A Letter from an Ex- Kangaroo Shooter 


Action 

I was a professional kangaroo shooter 38 years ago. Now I spend an inordinate amount of time in the defence of animals that are doing poorly at the hands of humans.

You may ask as to what has led me to do a complete turnabout in my thinking, and expect some profound answer explaining that at such and such a moment in time the sky opened up and all of a sudden I saw the light. Sorry to disappoint, but it did not happen this way.

If there is any profundity in my "conversion", it is that I have come to the realization that we are all led down differing paths in life by our genetic make-up and the circumstance that we find ourselves in.

In my case, 38 years ago, the whole social, political and animal concern scene was vastly different to today's. There was a predominate attitude of human matters being at the fore of thought and a mish-mash of ideas when dealing with the other animals on the planet. On the one hand, personal pets were gaining in the welfare stakes, as were wild creatures that had "fluffy" appeal. On the other, domestic stock conditions were degrading rapidly into the factory farm situation that is still rampant to now.

This some decades of time saw European cities and other population centres around the Western World explode into greater awareness of the suffering of our "food". Unfortunately, socio/economic pressures, had rural climes, to a large extent, excluded from this expansion of a new way in thinking about the rest of nature.

In this distant past, the kangaroo was erroneously thought of as a pest that was diminishing the financial returns of those who depended on their income in outback areas.

This excuse was reasoning enough for kangaroos to be killed without compassion, for they were the enemy. Even so, I, and I would suggest, many other kangaroo shooters, were and are, very uneasy with the practice of having to kill Joey's on a never ending basis. It was not understood then, that the Joey-at-foot would also die in a state of terror by psychological deprivation, predation or starvation. Many kangaroo shooters now convince themselves that this joey escapes and lives happily ever after. Delusions of this sort are not uncommon in the industry and in governments and their acting agents.

Self-delusion played a big part in my experience as a kangaroo shooter but let me state here in the most unequivocal manner that is possible, to be able to self deceive is part and parcel of being human. There will be those that read this in a most judgmental way, comforting themselves with the thought that they could never had done such a thing as kangaroo shooting. Be very careful of that kind of thinking because it does not accord with the facts about the capacity of humanity to be inhumane to people and animals, given the right set of circumstance. Be very careful that you are not self-deluding yourself on this point, for if you are, you are just the person who could be a kangaroo shooter if the situation dictated it so.

I do come across this kind of condemnation but it so insignificant when compared to the mental anguish I put myself through on a daily basis as to be non-existent. This will be carried till the day I die.

Thoughts of the terrible woundings and as stated, the slaughter of the innocents and now with greater knowledge, thoughts of the at-foot-Joey's left to fend for themselves in their thousands. Thoughts of taking the lives of countless numbers of kangaroos for convenient reasons. Thoughts of being a part of the juggernaut that was and is altering the genetic make up of a marvellous animal. Thoughts of my part in vilifying the kangaroo with the end result of it not having the awed respect, as it should, of the Australian people. Every time there is a wanton act of cruelty to kangaroos, I must bear some of the blame.

I stopped being a kangaroo shooter for many reason, with the cruelty only one of the many.

The kangaroo is not a pest and it is only the greedy and the foolhardy who believe it is a resource to be used at whim.

Australia must re-define its stubbornly inadequate definition of what is compassion and in doing so reap the rewards of not only doing the right thing, but the very tangible benefits of the eco-tourist dollar.

No doubt, other kangaroo shooters will read this, so it seems appropriate to leave a message for them.

If you can see past the self-delusion of what you are doing to other sentient and suffering capable creatures, for the sake of your future mind, do not wait for kangaroo shooting to be discarded as a remnant of our brutish past, as it will, but choose to get out now. The rest of your life will thank you for this very wise action.

This I guarantee.

David Nicholls

END QUOTE


----------



## junglejane (Oct 19, 2006)

xander said:


> I love marsupials and have handreared some, but what I think is that sheep,cows,pigs have destroyed the land by their hard hooves compacting soil creating desertation.Roos however are designed to live and cope with the harsh aussie environment.It would be more sustainable both environmentally and economical if Aussies ate roos(Est greys and reds)and didnt eat cattle,etc.Kangaroos also are basically baby machines,they can have a joey at foot,one in the pouch and another on the way.So I dont think they could possibly become endangered.(Im only referring to Kangaroos,not wallabies)Also no trees need to be cleared for roos as oppossed to greenhouse emmiting cattle.



Just to let you know, kangaroos ONLY reproduce when the conditions are right. They don't just pop them out constantly, it really depends on available food and water.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

I have seen many cull's and paticipated in a few. Pucka used to have Wallabies and other small native's, not any more. They have been eaten out by the over population of Roo's. We caused the over population by providing water points etc. There numbers are at plague proportions. It does damage the natural eco system. Naturaly there would not be those sort of numbers of Roo's. There are to many for the land to sustain. This isn't a problem that is limited to Pucka, Port Campbell is another, and Bordertown is another. 

We will never exterminate the Roo's the are a native and if there numbers were naturally being kept in check then there would be no reason to allow cull's. To think we would eradicat an australian ikon like skippy is bollocks. The only animals that will find extermination in australia are those that are not native. Yes we are loosing species and many are endangered but we don't cull them, these are dying due to reasons we caused but not due to culling today ( Hawk's etc were killed going back a while).


----------



## cris (Oct 19, 2006)

So is there anyone here who doesnt think humane culling of roos to some extent is required to manage our environment?


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

You could end this debate right here with a question like that Cris, but it will show where people stand on the matter.


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 19, 2006)

richardwells said:


> Nowhere have I criticised the humane destruction of roos as a result of sound evidence and biological necessity - such as the conditions that you mention above.



Indeed.... (?)

No one is saying that culling is pretty, no one here takes joy in the thought of it happening. You're not going to shoot kangaroos without causing a bit of pain, no one is trying to delude themselves in that way, but unfortunately we sometimes need to do some less-than-pretty things for the overall good, as your backflip acknowledges.


Boa: You seem to be resentful of the building project hurting koalas. Yes, it's sad, but you and I both live in houses which were built on land which used to be home to them. If you have children, they will do the same (if it is not the destroyed former home of koalas, it will be something else). You drive around on roads which were built on land which used to be home to koalas, you probably work in a building, you go shopping in buildings, you have friends and colleagues who do the same, we all use electricity, we all... well, you get the idea. Where do you propose these people go about their business if not on former koala habitat? Unless we're willing to move to Mars and not receive any Terran supplies, or we are prepared to kill ourselves (and preferably take as many other humans out with us as possible), we really don't have the right to complain about buildings being errected on former habitat. Things which live does so at the expense of other things, that's just a harsh and inescapable reality of the universe.

Incidentally, we share identical genetic material with every living thing on the planet (including plants), so unless you want to start eating rocks, the "how can you kill something which is so similar to us" argument won't hold.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Sdaji said:


> ..." as your backflip acknowledges".
> 
> As some readers have mixed views on the issue, this discussion has now morphed into including the humane "culling" of sick roos. It was therefore necessary for me to state my position in that particular aspect, so that I may make it quite clear who my targets really are...and they have never been those who advocate the humane killing of sick roos. As I have repeatedly said it is the RECREATIONAL SHOOTER and the COMMERCIAL KANGAROO HARVESTERS who I see as damaging to the conservation of the roo. You may interpret this as a "backflip" if you wish, but what I said changes absolutely nothing about the issues that I have previously explained....and as you said... "that's just a harsh and inescapable reality of the universe".
> 
> Richard Wells


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

It was comercial kangaroo harvesters who cleaned up pucka, our farm's etc. I would class myself as a recreational shooter when we do a cull or I need dog food. 

The problems faced at pucka were caused by over population. The result disease, starvation, destruction of local habbitat, and the extinction of other native flora and fauna due to lack of food, and natural order disruption.

Quote
"What I am not willing to accept however, is the fallacious argument that there is an over-population of roos that is resulting in the destruction of Australian ecosystems, and that this alleged over-population is justification in itself for their extermination by recreational and commercial operatives."
Richard Wells

That is a backflip.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Mayo said:


> "The problems faced at pucka were caused by over population. The result disease, starvation, destruction of local habbitat, and the extinction of other native flora and fauna due to lack of food, and natural order disruption."
> 
> Oh I see what you are getting at now...sorry about the confusion. I still don't really think it's a backflip though, because my position actually addresses the broader scale of the slaughter. Yes, I know that it all must come down to a case by case assessment, and no doubt there would be isolated situations where the slaughter is minimized to the point of a recreational shooter acting no more significantly than say a natural predator would. However, slaughter is still slaughter, and the cumulative impact of these thousands of otherwise negligible impacts adds up to a death by a thousand cuts type of demise, rather than something more spectacularly sudden and far-reaching as may occur say when a state government orchestrates a seasonal kill quota in the millions.
> I should also mention that my concerns about claims of "over population" are not silenced by assertions based on unscientific, false or just plain mistaken premises...So the question of what caused this so-called "over-population" of the Pucka Roo must be addressed in any evaluation of how the issue was dealt with there. It is a common mistake by proponents of one stand or another in the debate over the years to confuse an "over-population" issue with an artificially induced concentration issue that has arisen through poor land-use, and other avoidable human interventions. What happened at Pucka is symptomatic of how the whole mess of wildlife integration (or disintegration) occurs. The reason why the Pucka issue copped such flack at the time and since is precisely because the principal causes of this huge aggregation were not satisfactorily addressed. The Final Solution tactic employed by the Government was a public relations nightmare that was only exceeded in magnitude by the intellectual inadequacy of the methods adopted.
> ...


----------



## dynea (Oct 19, 2006)

Richard you need to go and make a documentry and give it to Little Johnny (Howard) If your really that passionate about it, you wouldn't be waffling on here on a reptile forum.

It's great that you have dedicated your land to them, good for you. But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread.


----------



## Retic (Oct 19, 2006)

Speak for yourself, I certainly don't think anything Richard has said deserve this comment "But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread." If anything "I was attecked by a kangaroo when i was just 14. I hate them, there mongrel animals. " and "and do need shooting. The same go's for fruit bats and flying fox's. " these comments cast a dark shadow over the thread.
We are talking about killing millions of native animals, I think the dark shadow has been cast already.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

It doesn't take a scientific team or any of that ****** to see the problem. This is the wider problem I use Pucka as an example because it was a large cull and nothing about it was hidden. The Roo's were hunted well before the white man got here. What do you think was the cause for wide spread disease like that. They are called over population because that is what they are. If it is your stomach that can't take the fact that as things are a cull is required then bury your head in the sand and go on about your business while those who can do what has to be done get on with the job. Yet to see you find a scientific basis to prove that a cull is not required, but I can see why they are so readily required. You still haven't given an alternative. Populations are judged on what the land can sustain. 

Yes we knock a few Roo's off for dog food or even ourselves if we find one in good condition. I am also sure that our neibours do the same, but still that does nothing to the numbers, and every few years we need to do another cull to bring the numbers back to normal. You make it sound like the Roo's are in danger of becoming extinct, where as they are thriving in this new environment we have created.

Pucka copped a lot of flack over the cull from bleeding hearts who didn't have a clue. You didn't need a gun to cull them you could have walked up to them and slit there throats. They were that diseased they couldn't even see you coming, and if it wasn't disease it was fleas and ticks not a nice way to die.Pucka is not the only place I have seen this. 

As has been mentioned one study says this and there will be another saying the opposite. Depends who put the money up for the study in the first place and they will both be scientifically based so a little common scence is required to read between the lines, and when the evidence is right in front of you, you can judge it as you se it.


----------



## AntaresiaLady (Oct 19, 2006)

> An eastern grey kangaroo found 200km from where eatern greys lived prior to european settlement is just as feral as a cat, goat or dog.
> Just because something is native to Australia does not mean it is native to the area.


I have a couple of things to ask here: 
How do we know with 100% certainty where the animals lived before the settlement? 
And is it possible the reason they're 200kms from where they are native is because as human populations have grown and pushed them out of their original homes?

I'm not for or against culling- I don't know enough to form an opinion yet, but I did wonder. 

Marie.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



dynea said:


> Richard you need to go and make a documentry and give it to Little Johnny (Howard) If your really that passionate about it, you wouldn't be waffling on here on a reptile forum.
> It's great that you have dedicated your land to them, good for you. But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread.




I am sorry that you feel that way...I'll try to cast a more illuminating viewpoint in my future posts...say, about as illuminating as a white hot flash of truth in the face of the darkness of ignorance? [and please note, I am not mocking you or anyone else in saying this]

And please don't undersell the value of a reptile forum like this for espousing (not waffling) such views...you never know who its members are and who regularly monitors it...I believe this is a very important issue, and I commend the Site for having the courage to provide the arena to share this and many other hot topics.

Oh, and by the way, if you think that what I have written is an extreme view on the issue of the unnecessary and totally unjustified mass murder of millions upon millions of kangaroos you really shouldn't look into the matter too deeply...There are tens of thousands of people far more enraged than me about this situation...

I'm actually a meek and mild, peace-loving person that wouldn't hurt a fly, bla bla bla...anything but extreme, perhaps a little vocal, maybe a little boisterous, well...maybe a bit off the richter at times, mmm...possibly a bit extroverted,... (Whoops, I'm waffling again !)

Richard Wells


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

You look at my side of the arguement as ignorant and I look at your's as a different point of view. But the truth of the matter is that with the way the country currently is, culls are required, and Rec shooters are not doing any damage to the survival of the kangaroos as a species. Regular culls are just keeping the species in check. Those that think we should sit on our hands and do nothing about the problem are deluded. Debat is a good start on solving the problem but without any action it is meaningless. The current strategy is regular cull's and I'm sure that there were study's and scientific papers written on the subject from both sides and the only answer that was given was regular cull's. If you can figure out a better solution to address the problem then please let us no. If you don't think that the Roo's are a problem well this thread shouldn't exist


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 19, 2006)

I agree with you 100% Mayo I live in a roo infested area and have roo shooters contracted by the council to clean up the excess.There are also private shooters that go onto private property and drop the numbers on that property for that day.The very next day there are the same amount of roos back again so where do you say no more?If you want any sort of useable land there has to be a line drawn as to what can eat it into the ground and what cant.Roos are not enviormentally freindly the eat down to ground level where as cattle do not.( ive been a dairy farmer for over 20 years)so i do know what im talking about Mr Wells.Everything needs to be controlled be it native animals or humans,we have to have some control.JMO 
Cheers Odie


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 19, 2006)

Richard: strange that you're still on your impressively high horse, even after conceding that culling can be necessary. No one is suggesting that we exterminate kangaroos, anyone who isn't a madman can see that there are more kangaroos now than there were 300 years ago if he wants to look into it and even you accept that there are cases where they need to be culled.

Why do you feel the need to deliberately stir up a large amount of gratuitous controversy? Let's have a think about the typical reasons people do this...



Meek and mild, anything but extreme, boisterous and off the richter, _all in the one sentence_! As I now understand, for you a backflip is barely a warm up! You missed your calling, you should have been a gymnast! 

Caught any big ones lately? :lol:


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Mayo said:


> ...Rec shooters are not doing any damage to the survival of the kangaroos as a species. Regular culls are just keeping the species in check. Those that think we should sit on our hands and do nothing about the problem are deluded....The current strategy is regular cull's and I'm sure that there were study's and scientific papers written on the subject from both sides and the only answer that was given was regular cull's....



I am anything but deluded on the issue of the probable extinction in the very near future of Kangaroos and Wallabies in Australia. We still haven't recieved any serious study of the impact the horrendous 2003 cull had on the major roo species in NSW alone (where over two million were given over to the Final Solution Strategy. Some of the concerns about this awful slaughter that were raised then by Maryland Wilson are still relevant now, and I include them below:

Richard Wells

QUOTE
KILLING OF THE ALPHA MALES 
" When a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos, he destroys a rich, complex system by killing the alpha male, his immediate rivals, and the older females, who are the educators of the mob. This selective hunting results in females mating with young males and the loss of the inherited strengths of the mob." 

The alpha male is critical for the social fabric of wild populations but for decades, the kangaroo killing industry has commercially targeted for profit, the alpha males. Night after night, kangaroo shooters have entered their domain and attacked the mobs of 'stress prone ' kangaroos, breaking up and destroying their family groups, killing their joeys, leaving them stressed, frightened and fearful . The late Dr Peter Rawlinson, zoologist La Trobe University said that when wild populations are under such stress, they breed furiously to preserve their species in a desperate attempt to prevent their demise.

NSW NPWS 2003 KANGAROO QUOTA IS IRRESPONSIBLE ; DROUGHT ADVERSELY AFFECTS 'ROOS
The NSW NPWS has failed to take into account the Precautionary Principle and has instead created a climate of economic opportunism to the detriment of kangaroo populations, particularly during this ever worsening current 2002 drought, without due regard for the welfare and future survival of kangaroos. 

NPWS ignores the scientific advice from Dr Graham Caughley who warned that all kangaroo killing should cease during drought to allow the strongest to survive. This present environmental crisis warrants an immediate moratorium on kangaroo killing to allow the strongest of the species to survive. But NPWS continues its charade, and issues kangaroo destruction permits to any landholder who wants them, handing our wildlife icons over as a prize, with no questions asked. Such action is irresponsible.

Instead NPWS says " The Government appreciates the problems facing the landholders in drought-affected areas. In response to concerns raised by graziers, the Government has given an undertaking that the NPWS and NSW Agriculture will review the skin-only option as part of its drought assistance package…the Government will carefully assess its potential impact on the kangaroo industry, which is one of the most significant employers in the State's west, and an industry worth $70 million in NSW." 

NSW BANNED SKIN ONLY SHOOTING (1997) DUE TO CRUELTY AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE

'FAST TRACKING' NON-COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS TO KILL KANGAROOS
Letter from Terry Korn NSW NPWS Director Western 24.9.2002 ( Re-introduction of skin only shooting)
" The NSW Government's extensive drought relief measures announced recently, included a commitment to "fast track" non-commercial applications to cull kangaroos. Farmers can get a free non-commercial license from the NPWS to shoot kangaroos that are competing for scarce resources in drought- affected areas. The license lasts for a period of three months. This initiative has been well received by landholders and the NPWS will continue to give priority to this program." Terry Korn NPWS

COMMERCIAL KILLING SEEN AS THE GOAL AND SCIENCE FOLLOWS SET PARAMETRES
Grigg and Pople refer to kangaroos as "pests" 40 times in their "Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia"

The 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', written by Gordon Grigg and Tony Pople is used as the definitive bible by Environment Australia for kangaroo management. It provides the basis upon which all scientific data is cynically used to justify the killing of millions of kangaroos each year. 

Grigg and Pople provide the 'scientific' parametres for commercial kangaroo killing. 

"Harvesting will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths. To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote the rate of increase. (e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplement its resources)"

"Rates of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the extinction of the populations (Arguments will be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource such as for Tourism)."

Governments pay Gordon Grigg, Tony Pople, Peter Hale, Steve Mc Leod, Stuart Cairns etc for their research and provide $$$ in subsidies to prop up a brutally cruel kangaroo industry which would not survive without such generous and on going help, to counteract growing worldwide condemnation

ARTIFICIAL MANIPULATION OF KANGAROO POPULATIONS INCREASES POPULATIONS
THEN THE SCIENTISTS COUNT THE ARTIFICIALLY HIGH POPULATIONS AND SET THE QUOTAS

Australian scientists defy natural selection and artificially manipulate populations to accommodate the commercial kangaroo industry and papers produced by these scientists start from their basic political premise that kangaroos be commercially killed as a resource . They then produce facts and figures to accommodate and support the need for a commercial kangaroo killing industry.

In the 2002 Kangaroo Management Program, 'damage mitigation' was removed because it could not be audited, as the sole cause of killing kangaroos and kangaroos are killed as a resource to provide profits.

Official Policy of Environment Australia

"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians." 

AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATE KANGAROO POPULATIONS WITH AN UP TO 80% MALE BIAS IN COMMERCIAL KILLING, THUS DEFYING NATURAL SELECTION SO ESSENTIAL TO WILD POPULATIONS, AND CAUSING A CONSTANT EROSION OF THE GENE POOL

Letter from SA Environment Minister David Wooten 24 March 1982 

"The Department is encouraging the increased harvesting of smaller kangaroos including females, as there is concern at the effect of preferential harvesting of larger kangaroos. Male kangaroos are generally larger than the females and the continued taking of the elite males could result in a deterioration of the quality of the population as a whole, because the smaller and less robust males would tend to be conserved while the larger, healthier animals would be shot out. The reduction in the number of female animals would also reduce the breeding rate of the overall population and therefore reduce the need for such high killing rates as is necessary at the present time" 

' ROO SLAUGHTER FEAR' LOSS OF GENE POOL
The Sydney Sun Herald 5/1/1997 by Fia Cumming :
"A WILDLIFE expert has warned of a dramatic crash in kangaroo numbers because commercial culling is killing off the biggest and most healthy animals. Wildlife gene researcher claims legal culling of millions of kangaroos each year leaves only smaller, weaker animals to reproduce - causing a constant erosion of the genetic pool."

"And he says the annual quota of kangaroos to be killed - more than 3.7 million in 1996 - is based on false information about their numbers." Dr Ian Gunn said "The evidence is indisputable. If left to continue, (it) has the potential to result in reduced genetic viability, lower reproductive efficiency and a radical reduction in the populations density below sustainable numbers in certain regions "

Dr Gunn says " ..one obvious result of years of shooting the largest animals will be a reduction in the overall size of the animals. Removing the dominant males who did most of the breeding would allow less healthy males to become the main source of the genes. Really we don't know, no-one knows, the effect of killing a high percentage of the larger males or females of the population." 

'FROM CONSERVATION TO EXPLOITATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA' 
Doug Reilly ( Macropod expert Chinaman Creek Environmental Research Station SA)
"In any wild animal, if you disrupt in a short period of time the normal reproduction processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years you are in danger of putting the species at risk. Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species (seals, bison,wolves) have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Many of these species suffered incursion of exotic bacterias and viruses when their populations contained a critical and unsustainable gene pool." 

PROFESSOR DAVID CONOVER STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
(Science magazine SMH July 8, 2002)
FISH THROWM BACK MEANS SMALL FRY
Professor Conover says that size is genetically controlled, as well as being associated with age. "We need to pay more attention to what the evolutionary impacts are. We just can't look at the ecological effect of harvesting. We have to add the Darwinian effect." (Darwin's theory of natural selection)

Dr Peter Hale
Queensland University, states that inappropriate and destructive 'culling' practices have no bearing on genetic loss or threats to kangaroo populations. But his research does not take into consideration emerging wildlife diseases, caused by viruses that are totally new to science . Professor John Mac Kenzie, University of Queensland said, " It is important scientists have the resources to look for agents that cause all major outbreaks of disease in Australia, such as kangaroo blindness and pilchard kills." The ability of kangaroos to adapt to climate change and disease threats is ignored by Hale. Floods follow drought and kangaroos face the terrible choroid blindness disease as well as other ignored bacterias and viruses. AWPC does not accept Hales' assurances nor do several other scientists that there is no loss to the gene pool by the present artificial manipulation of kangaroo populations and inappropriate 'culling practices. 

But Environment Australia's Jonathan Miller A/g Assistant Sec Wildlife Australia 29 September 2002 supports Hale:
" In regard to the genetic impact of kangaroo harvesting there is currently no information coming from the harvest data collected by the States that indicates that commercial harvesting has had any deleterious impacts on the genetic fitness of kangaroo populations. However, kangaroo management plans allow for adaptive management, and should such information arise, changes to harvesting procedures could be implemented in response." 

We condemn their lack of concern and what if Peter Hale and Environment Australia are wrong? The survival of kangaroos is being used as a political football. 

Further, NPWS totally ignores the inherent cruelty to kangaroos, in-pouch and ex-pouch joeys… 
Where is the implementation of the Precautionary Principle or is the NSW NPWS merely the marketing arm of the kangaroo industry? If so, perhaps an overt declaration to the general community would be appropriate. 
Do we wait to see if there is a threat and then act, hoping it will not be too late? 
Do we wait to see if the gene pool has been depleted or that kangaroos populations crash beyond the point of no return? Wake up please NPWS to the enormous threats to kangaroo populations. 
AUSTRALIA'S SHAME
There are almost no areas left where kangaroos are safe from shooters. Nothing has changed since 1982.
92% of NSW has been drought declared. and the NSW NPWS has set a commercial kill for 2003 of 2,107,620 kangaroos with a Proposed special quota of another 134,000 kangaroos for farmers. This so-called non-commercial kill becomes a commercial kill which is then part of the quota. How mischievous!

LEAVING THE YOUNG RECRUITS
Dr Stuart Cairns
"All of Mulyungarie is easily accessible to a professional shooter, enabling him to cull predominantly mature males. This means that the Mootooroo Pastoral Company is turning the 'roo into something resembling a domestic animal, culling any surplus males and topping up each night with a few does. It is the nearest thing to sustainable farming in Australia. Essentially, they are lifting the food resource base for new recruits - animals just leaving the pouch and the young at foot. It is certainly a sustainable harvest" 

TOTAL GRAZING PRESSURE DAMAGE BY KANGAROOS EXAGGERATED BY UP TO 500% 
Professor Gordon Grigg
The damage done on grazing lands by kangaroos has been overestimated by up to 500%. "This would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the total grazing pressure than is generally accepted. The hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by pest control of kangaroos is probably doomed to failure." Grigg says that kangaroos should be regarded as a resource.

GLOVE BOX GUIDE TO KANGAROOS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN
Translated, this means finding more and better ways to kill kangaroos
Dr Steve Mc Leod
'Culling during drought, when the need seems greatest from a pastoral perspective, may be less beneficial in the long run than culling in the immediate post-drought period. Culling during drought simply removes animals that would die in any event and, paradoxically, favors survival of those remaining. Culling in the immediate post-drought period, when the population is beginning to rebuild from a low base and food is plentiful (so that culled animals represent a genuine reduction in the populations) will have longer lasting effects." Page. 18

' In most situations, establishment of self -mustering yards is probably the best way to ensure that waters can be closed to kangaroos when required.' Page. 17

''The impact of harvesting or culling on kangaroo density depends greatly on the ratio of males to females taken. If only males are taken, little if any long term reduction in density will result from harvest rates that would rapidly lead to extinction if the harvest were balanced. Conversely, a harvest that is strongly biased towards females will achieve a much greater reduction in density than would otherwise occur. Careful selection of the animals targeted may thus make a substantial difference to the overall result achieved." Pages. 17 & 18

'When animals are taken under shoot and let lie permits, greater opportunity exists for selective harvesting. Carefully targeted shooting under these conditions could be expected to have much greater impact in the long run than hasty, indiscriminate culling" Page 18

MANAGING KANGAROOS IN THE MURRAY - DARLING BASIN SEPTEMBER 2002
Ron Hacker, Steve Mc Leod, John Durhan, Brigitte Tenhumberg and Udai Pradhan
Scenarios for kangaroo killing
'A major outcome of this collaboration was the Committee's decision to recommend that additional funding be provided to support both a sub-project related to the effects of kangaroo harvesting on population genetics and the production of an expanded range of publications." Page 3

" A spatial model of kangaroos harvesting was developed to examine the likely distribution of the commercial harvest effort over the landscape. The model assumes that the level of profit required by a harvester determines the density at which harvesting will cease in a given area under specified assumptions regarding operating costs and commodity price.." page 7

" The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 10% male only harvesting. The preferred options for the kangaroo industry were also strongly male biased. The best overall combination was male-only harvesting at an annual rate of 40%. Pastoralists' preferred options, in contrast, were characterised by harvest rates greater than 30% made up of at least 30% females. The best overall combination was an annual harvest rate of 90% made up of 70% females". Page 9
The above would cause the extinction of the species.

The above reveals a hatred of and contempt for kangaroos which is deeply imbedded in the Australian psyche . The pastoralists want kangaroos dead. These are OUR taxes at work…on how to kill off kangaroos in Australia. The Rural Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) and other agricultural bodies have been subsidising this type of research for many years. The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) works hand in hand with Australian scientists such as Grigg, Mc Leod, Hacker, Tenhumberg, Pople, Cairns, Hale, Pradhan, Druhan, Archer, Hopwood etc

Maryland Wilson
President 

END OF QUOTE


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

I read about 3/4 of that and don't believe half of it. No one is hunting kangaroos to the brink of extinction what a crock. If you want to debate such matters get to the point, hiding behind the works of others and using long winded bolocks does not help your arguement at all. It is easy for these people to mock institutions like NPWS etc but let's see them come up with some practical solution, can't find any, because they don't have any. I could sit here and pick so many holes through what I read it was amazing half of it was even written. Dr, Professor, Expert, for some of those I doubt it. I'm not going to bother going looking for the supportive side as it is obvious that it is not required for this all that searching and still I see very little practical info. Yes I acknowledge that we are taking the strongest of the species at the moment and yes that is something that should change but the culls are still required. The extinction of the species is so far fetched that it's not funny. The diseases that they are talking about have come about due to over population. Disease mutation occurs most when there are a multitude of hosts such as over population.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 19, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



OdessaStud said:


> Roos are not enviormentally freindly the eat down to ground level where as cattle do not.( ive been a dairy farmer for over 20 years)so i do know what im talking about Mr Wells.
> Cheers Odie



Odie...
Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me.

From my experience, we have had absolutely no trouble at all will roos "eating down to ground level", although some years back the cattle on our property consumed the place down to rocks in places - before they were finally removed to the abattoirs and our place saved for wildlife.

Roos are a very environmentally friendly component of the ecosystem - even during environmental perturbations like the drought we are still in down here.

I cannot do much better than quote those more experienced than me in the value of the Kangaroo to Australia (reproduced below). Perhaps they might convince your to dump the Moos for the Roos?

Cheers - Richard Wells

Quote:

ACTION
Wildlife and eco-tourism have tremendous national wealth and jobs potential. The kangaroo is a universally loved icon yet millions, now declared a resource, are slaughtered to accommodate destructive agricultural practices.

It is time for the tourism industry to maximize on the already established international reputation of the kangaroo as a major tourist icon.

Australia's leaders hide behind a protective wall of propaganda and irresponsible legislation, so that a few may gain from the death of a species.

Australia has the highest rate of extinctions in the world but there appears to be no shame, only apathy about this appalling record.

Myth: Plagues of kangaroos? Australia overrun by kangaroos?
Fact: Kangaroos were widespread and abundant at the time of early settlement. Now they are fugitives in their own country and Skippy is relentlessly pursued.

Myth: Kangaroos degrade and destroy the environment.
Fact: The soft padded feet and long tail of the kangaroo are integral to the ecological health of the land as regenerators of native grasses. It is destructive agricultural practices on marginal land that are proving to be unsustainable.

Myth: We need to kill and eat our wildlife to save it. Wildlife must 'pay its way'.
Fact: It is imperative that we link wildlife corridors throughout Australia to restore kangaroo and wildlife habitat. Tourists want to see tourist icon Skippy... but kangaroos are being decimated and the outback is turning to dust. The ecological and economic value of wildlife nature-based tourism is ignored.

Fail to acknowledge different and specific needs of the four commercially killed species and 'manage' them as one:

Use 'guesstimates' and changing correction factors to estimate populations

Totally disregard the biological and social needs of kangaroos

Ignore natural selection and manipulate kangaroo populations for artificial results to benefit the kangaroo industry

Do not monitor the legal or illegal killing of kangaroos

Ignore studies which prove kangaroos do not compete with cattle and sheep

Removed 'damage mitigation' as the sole reason for killing kangaroos

Ignore the Precautionary Principle

Ignore the $6 billion nature-based tourism industry 

Red kangaroos are a threatened species:

Red kangaroos are now being killed at a rate three times higher than they are reproducing. In the 1960's their average age was 12; today it is 2. Their average weight was 35 kg in the 1960's, which today is 18kg. Commercial killing has put insupportable pressure on Red kangaroos which now threatens the species.

Australians brutally slaughter kangaroos and bash their joeys to death:

Government sanctioned cruelty
The Code of Practice says joeys can be ripped from their slain mother's pouch and hit on the head with a water pipe or iron bar until dead; shooters even bash joeys against their vehicle or a tree trunk.

Older, ex-pouch, but still dependent joeys flee in terror when their mothers are killed to die from cold, starvation, predation and maternal depravation. A million or more joeys die in this way every year.

No Shooter will ever allow himself to be filmed killing joeys.

The Code of Practice is not linked to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and is legally unenforcable.

Contrary to public perception, the RSPCA does NOT monitor or police cruelty to commercially killed kangaroos. 

Loss of inherited genetic strengths a threat to kangaroo species:
Selective hunting of kangaroos for commercial gain results in females mating with younger non-Alpha males, and the loss of inherited genetic strengths, which sustain the mob.
Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Exotic bacteria and viruses can decimate genetically weakened populations.

Kangaroos as GAME meat; you'd have to be game to eat it!
Kangaroos are shot in the wild at night, disembowelled amongst the faeces of other animals, dirt and dust. 'Game-meats' are a source of infection for hunters, processors and consumers.

Undercooked or raw kangaroo meat can carry hydatids , nematode worms, parasitic zoonoses and other bacterial, fungal and viral diseases. Kangaroo meat inspection ignores the normal principles for meat hygiene.

Raw kangaroo may be unsafe for your pets as well. For decades farmers have been told not to feed sheep offal to their dogs because of hydatids, but there is no difference between dogs eating sheep offal or eating kangaroo offal.

The best way to resurrect tourism is to save Kangaroos with help from sympathetic, cooperative farmers who share an empathy for the preservation of our wildlife. This will generate jobs, income and restore life to the bush.

Contact:
National Kangaroo Protection Coalition,
PO Box 309 Beerwah 4519
Queensland 0408 711 344.
Email: mailto:[email protected]

END QUOTE


----------



## Mayo (Oct 19, 2006)

Took a quick look at Maryland Wilson site, you have got to be kidding, all diseased Roo's at pucka should be treated and euthanised as a last resort by a vet. She has lost her mind, if you read that bolocks and believe it you truely are lost, and the bigger picture is beyond you. There are more agendas there than you can poke a stick at you seem inteligent enough but to believe that or try and use it in an inteligent arguement is rediculous.


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 19, 2006)

If you can't come up with a convincing story, just throw more at them than they're willing to read and hope they'll assume there was something worthwhile in it, huh?

Cutting and pasting material written by people who have their heads in the sand or clouds isn't exactly a compelling way to argue your point, especially when much of it is irrelevant!

Of the "relevant" material, I most loved the claims that kangaroos don't compete for food with domestic stock such as sheep and cows! Kangaroos love to eat grass... remind me, what do sheep and cows like to eat?


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

Well where do I start with that one. Aboriginals have been eating them for thousands of years, yes people are making a profit from the cull's that is just life. 

Quote
"Odie...Experience can be a funny thing...I mean to say you can have 20 Years Experience...or a Year's Experience 20 times, but either way, I'm sure you would know more about a dairy than me."

No you wouldn't mock anyone nor would you abuse anyone knowingly.

Roo's do not nessaserily compete with sheep and cattle, because Roo's will eat grasses right to the ground and will even dig up the root's and eat those, sheep and cattle do not. 

Tourists want to see the Roo's in the zoo's like steve Erwins so thay can pat them and think they are friendly, very few tourist's go to the bush to see a Roo in the wild.

If no one profits from a 6 billion dollar industry how can it be a 6 billion dollar industry.

They are only half the weight they were in the 60's funnily enough we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts in over a hundred years.

And that was just a start stop hiding behind so called experts a drught like this will and should decimate numbers but it's not and survival of the fitest is becoming irrelevant because most of the hardships have been removed.


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 20, 2006)

Quote:From my experience, we have had absolutely no trouble at all will roos "eating down to ground level", although some years back the cattle on our property consumed the place down to rocks in places - before they were finally removed to the abattoirs and our place saved for wildlife.

Richard Wells how can you be making a stand against roos and yet you left cows to eat dirt on your property???The cows were introduced and had no choice on grazing the land given to them.Roos on the other hand move from property to property eating everthing in their path.How can you admit to doing that to the cows that is far worse than culling roos.
Mr Wells I believe you should continue in your protest but maybe not be so self rightious in your own opions when you sir left cows to starve on your own land.


----------



## freddy (Oct 20, 2006)

odessa what part claims he starved them just because they couldnt graze doesnt mean they were starved before he took them to the abattoir>>> correct me if im wrong but i work on a dairy and seem to believe they could survive without grass or crops to graze on for a period of time prior to the abattoir.>>>> i havent read this entire thread and dont plan on doing so, so if you could just point out that part i'll be off


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 20, 2006)

Quote Freddy::correct me if im wrong but i work on a dairy and seem to believe they could survive without grass or crops to graze on for a period of time prior to the abattoir
Freddy in light of the fact that you cant be bothered reading the whole thread you are out of line making any comment at all JMO>you have picked up on one comment that I made and have gone with it making the remark that you did.
Cows cannot live without feed for a period of time as you call it,sure they wont drop dead in the first month or so but for a cow to eat the ground down to rock??? Sorry Freddy the dairy man but I recon that could be seen as being starved?


----------



## freddy (Oct 20, 2006)

OdessaStud said:


> Freddy in light of the fact that you cant be bothered reading the whole thread you are out of line making any comment at all JMO>you have picked up on one comment that I made and have gone with it making the remark that you did.
> Cows cannot live without feed for a period of time as you call it,sure they wont drop dead in the first month or so but for a cow to eat the ground down to rock??? Sorry Freddy the dairy man but I recon that could be seen as being starved?


why would i bother reading the rest???? out of line huh?? sure mate  
ok well because your the ultimate expert on cattle round here or so it seems.......cattle will always graze on land wether it be to dust or not its what they do>> but still they can be maintained without pastures for longer than a month. this is in cattle in general not just dairy. what would you call feedlots or drought stricken areas or the outback in general?? they live perfectly out there and have nothing under their hooves but dirt and ROCKS and are still well maintained NOT STARVED!!!!!!!!!!! you dont have any proof these animals were starved and therefore are out of line stating that comment in your arguement. the animals in Question could have easily been maintained on silage and grain mixtures. this method is actually practised in drought stricken areas unable to grow their own crops.


this is based on my exp. and is my opinion to be flamed upon by the great one


----------



## dynea (Oct 20, 2006)

*Whatever Boa*



boa said:


> Speak for yourself, I certainly don't think anything Richard has said deserve this comment "But your extreme veiws are casting a dark shadow over this thread." If anything "I was attecked by a kangaroo when i was just 14. I hate them, there mongrel animals. " and "and do need shooting. The same go's for fruit bats and flying fox's. " these comments cast a dark shadow over the thread.
> We are talking about killing millions of native animals, I think the dark shadow has been cast already.



 Well I'm sorry you feel that way Boa:| , I didn't actually feel as though i'd attacked him, I just thought his Pages and pages of copyrighted information be better used on the government, You know the people who actually have the "power" to change things. It would be all well and good if he wrote in his own words a paragraph. :shock: Maybe my post wouldn't have sounded so harsh if i had somebody write it and proof read it.:x 
I answered the question, To cull or not to cull. I told you my experience and backed up the story behind the bats. I also backtracked in what i said about hating roos. So how about you quote form that post as well. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that i have an educated opinion on this topic, I just had an opinion. that was all that was asked for. And I put myself on the line and offered it. 
forgive me:x


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



OdessaStud said:


> Quote:
> Mr Wells I believe you should continue in your protest but maybe not be so self rightious in your own opions when you sir left cows to starve on your own land.



The cattle had nothing to do with me as they were on the property when we bought it. Only after we purchased the land were they immediately ordered off the property so that the land could be rehabilitated. So, just step back take a deep breath and, as I am being repeatedly told by the ROO KILLERS...get your own facts straight before you accuse me of cruelty like that. Should I happen to start on the Dairy Industry and expose the appalling practices of some in your industry, then rest assured I will do my homework on that issue as well. Until then, please stick to the Roo issue and save your own self righteousness for matters that you are more familiar with...

Richard Wells


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

Perhaps you should also get back to the topic Richard. Give some practical solutions and not cut and paste volumes of text and try to bore everyone with it. Do you eat meat, do you use dairy products, do you live in a house made from modern matreials. If you start throwing to many stones Richard you best be sure your not living in a glass house. That high moral horse will have very shakey legs if you start that, and if you want to keep attacking people have a go at me, you are continually avoiding me at the moment.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Sdaji said:


> Richard: strange that you're still on your impressively high horse, even after conceding that culling can be necessary. No one is suggesting that we exterminate kangaroos, anyone who isn't a madman can see that there are more kangaroos now than there were 300 years ago if he wants to look into it and even you accept that there are cases where they need to be culled.
> Why do you feel the need to deliberately stir up a large amount of gratuitous controversy? Let's have a think about the typical reasons people do this...
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

Still no practical solutions, no answers, just more hot air. I think it is below you to be so irational about this. There is a problem with over population in many areas, and you just can't seem to grasp that something needs to be done so you stick your head in the sand and say your right without taking a look at the big picture.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Mayo said:


> Perhaps you should also get back to the topic Richard. Give some practical solutions and not cut and paste volumes of text and try to bore everyone with it. Do you eat meat, do you use dairy products, do you live in a house made from modern matreials. If you start throwing to many stones Richard you best be sure your not living in a glass house. That high moral horse will have very shakey legs if you start that, and if you want to keep attacking people have a go at me, you are continually avoiding me at the moment.



Please rest assured that I will respond to YOU in due course. You have made quite a few statements that definitely need addressing...so don't get too comfortable thinking that I have ignored you...because I haven't 

Richard Wells


----------



## JandC_Reptiles (Oct 20, 2006)

Why do people have to sling mud?
Why is it one side is entitled to an opinion but another side is not?

I would like to see roo's extinct, I have a real hatred towards them for personal reasons BUT I dont feel the need to attack any wildlife warriors that would like to save them. And if I was to sit on the other side of the fence I would feel no need to attack those that condone the culling of them. RIGHT OR WRONG? there is opinions for both sides, why not respect them both? 

Just my generalised opinion directed at nobody in particular.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

I like it J and C Reptiles very amusing but I consider this a sort of debate, and believe it or not I am interested in what others have to say. Yes you are entitled to an opinion but am I wrong for questioning that opinion. Mud slinging is part of debate like the rebuttle etc. As Richard has said you never realy know who you are talking to or who else may be reading this. In the end we will probable still disagree but hopefully we will have both learned something.

Richard: Please don't try to bore me this time with some long winded c**p.


----------



## JandC_Reptiles (Oct 20, 2006)

I know but I have been dying to post that lol


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

J and C keep it up it's good to have some funny anacdotes to read to break such a serious thread up a bit.


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 20, 2006)

I still think Kangaroo is a supremely delicious meat, and the only mistake farmers have made is not swapping their cattle stocks over for Roos  Anyone had Roo snags before??? They are tops! 

Currently I'm working on a Chilli Roo Stir-fry! .....geeesh, it's making my mouth water!


----------



## Mayo (Oct 20, 2006)

Never tried them as snags, but farming them would be extreamely difficult


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 20, 2006)

Yep, you'd have to build higher fences  *OR, genetically modify them to have little legs!*


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 20, 2006)

Big kisses to you Freddy I love a man with attitude. 

Mr Wells good luck with your crusade.


----------



## vinspa (Oct 20, 2006)

OdessaStud said:


> Big kisses to you Freddy I love a man with attitude.
> 
> Mr Wells good luck with your crusade.



the man u love with attitude is actullay a girl


----------



## moosenoose (Oct 20, 2006)

................with bigger balls than most blokes too may I add! (I mean that in a complimentary way too Freddo!  :lol: )


----------



## dynea (Oct 20, 2006)

*lol*

":I see the hypocrisy of gun-toting Rambo-Would-Be-If-They-Could-Be's, killing at will what is not theirs to kill [AND YES I AM MOCKING THEM]." 

rolleyes: This comming from a flower power-end the war-wacky tabacky-master of macropods. :shock:  



"I have to rush to my pole-vaulting class, so that I can continue to leap ahead of the MOCKED ones !"

Please....I've jumped bigger hurdles than you, than a roo has jumped fences


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 20, 2006)

Freddy? a she ?? are you sure with that mouth I was sure it was a he!!! maybe a woman in comfortable shoes eh Freddy??


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



dynea said:


> "I have to rush to my pole-vaulting class, so that I can continue to leap ahead of the MOCKED ones !"
> Please....I've jumped bigger hurdles than you, than a roo has jumped fences



You must be a darned good jumper, so I guess I'll take your word for it...

In any case, I note that you wish you were still in Townsville...I lived in the Cairns area for a while and spent quite a bit of time in Townsville...It would have to be one of the most beautiful places in the world...I had such good times there...I always wanted to move there, but instead I got sucked into western NSW - a dry hole at the end of the earth where everything is in a state of either death, dying or deterioration. My wife is a psychologist (no, she didn't involved with me for a research project!) and of course she hasn't been able to work in all the years that we have been here - such a waste...

On other matters Roo, I have to get back to compiling something helpful for one of the Mocked Ones...so I must go

Richard Wells


----------



## Lucas (Oct 20, 2006)

*NOW ITS MY TURN:lol:*

I haven't read the whole post and I'm not going to either but I'm putting my say in, as everyone else has. I don't believe in Roo culling just as I don't belive ing the Croc culling that that Mick somebody up north has been proposing. I got in contact with this mick bloke after I saw an interview with him to question him about his motives, being that he was a poacher and a bit of a trigger happy killing freak. He came back with a very convincing argument but I still wasn't convinced.

The only reason I wasn't convinced is due to the fact that I oughtright believe that native animals shouldn't be culled to make way for introduced species, including humans ( and I don't care what anyone here has to say, the only reason for culling is to leave feed for livestock or "for the safety of mankind"). 

Farming on the other hand is a different story. If the cull was a controlled farm cull that was then going to a butchery and then into the supermarket I would be all for that. I buy roo meat over beef, lamb or chicken without fail.

From what I've seen living in small farming communities and being involved with farming families, culls are, 90% of the time an excuse for rednecks to get together, half cut and have a pi55ing comp by trying to out-do each other with the amount of kills they can muster. I was watching one of these pillars of society shooting herron's, claiming they were eating HIS yabbies. When pulled up his retort was rather short and to the point. 

I may not be the most edumacated in this subject but I know where my beliefs lay and where my moral obligations are.

Now, as for being on a moral high horse (as apparently Richard Wells is), what the hell is wrong with that? Where is the problem with having morals and holding to them. Where is the problem with sticking to ones beliefs?

In my opinion its better than looking away and hiding behind the crowd.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Roo !*



Lucas said:


> ...I don't believe in Roo culling just as I don't belive ing the Croc culling .



 Yahoo !! There IS someone else out there that likes to be crucified ! 

I'm really glad you mentioned the Croc culling issue - because as soon as I've finished having my say on the Roo issue, I was thinking that would be another good topic to get stuck into...and let's see what emerges.....

Sorry Lucas, I have to gallop off now on my very high horse to have some dinner....and it won't be humble pie old mate...

Regards,

Richard Wells


----------



## Lucas (Oct 20, 2006)

richardwells said:


> Yahoo !! There IS someone else out there that likes to be crucified !
> 
> I'm really glad you mentioned the Croc culling issue - because as soon as I've finished having my say on the Roo issue, I was thinking that would be another good topic to get stuck into...and let's see what emerges.....
> 
> ...



:lol: I really look forward to it:lol:


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Death by Roo Stir Fry ? Save the Roo!*



moosenoose said:


> I still think Kangaroo is a supremely delicious meat, and the only mistake farmers have made is not swapping their cattle stocks over for Roos  Anyone had Roo snags before??? They are tops!
> Currently I'm working on a Chilli Roo Stir-fry! .....geeesh, it's making my mouth water!



Just a quick note to try and make your next Roo Barby a little more entertaining...the following article from the excellent Kangaroo Protection Coalition is well worth reading before you tuck into your next pile of roo stir fry...

Richard Wells

Quote

What is toxoplasmosis, and how can eating kangaroo meat give it to you?
First of all, what is toxoplasmosis? 
A single-celled parasite called Toxoplasma gondii causes a disease known as toxoplasmosis. While the parasite is found throughout the world, more than 60 million people in the United States may be infected with the Toxoplasma parasite. Of those who are infected, very few have symptoms because a healthy person's immune system usually keeps the parasite from causing illness. However, pregnant women and individuals who have compromised immune systems should be cautious; for them, a Toxoplasma infection could cause serious health problems. 



How do people get toxoplasmosis? 

A Toxoplasma infection occurs by: 

Accidentally swallowing cat feces from a Toxoplasma-infected cat that is shedding the organism in its feces. This might happen if you were to accidentally touch your hands to your mouth after gardening, cleaning a cat's litter box, or touching anything that has come into contact with cat feces. But cats only spread Toxoplasma in their feces for a few weeks following infection with the parasite. Like humans, cats rarely have symptoms when first infected, so most people do not know if their cat has been infected. The infection will go away on its own; therefore it does not help to have your cat or your cat's feces tested for Toxoplasma. 

Eating contaminated raw or partly cooked meat, especially gamemeat such as kangaroo or venison, pork, lamb; by touching your hands to your mouth after handling undercooked meat. 

Contaminating food with knives, utensils, cutting boards and other foods that have had contact with raw meat. 

Drinking water contaminated with Toxoplasma. 

Receiving an infected organ transplant or blood transfusion, though this is rare. 


What are the symptoms of toxoplasmosis? 

Symptoms of the infection vary. 

Most people who become infected with Toxoplasma are not aware of it. Some people who have toxoplasmosis may feel as if they have the "flu" with swollen lymph glands or muscle aches and pains that last for a month or more. Severe toxoplasmosis, causing damage to the brain, eyes, or other organs, can develop from an acute Toxoplasma infection or one that had occurred earlier in life and is now reactivated. Severe cases are more likely in individuals who have weak immune systems, though occasionally, even persons with healthy immune systems may experience eye damage from toxoplasmosis. 

Most infants who are infected while still in the womb have no symptoms at birth, but they may develop symptoms later in life. A small percentage of infected newborns have serious eye or brain damage at birth. 


Who is at risk for developing severe toxoplasmosis? 

People who are most likely to develop severe toxoplasmosis include: 

Infants born to mothers who became infected with Toxoplasma for the first time during or just before pregnancy. 

Persons with severely weakened immune systems, such as individuals with HIV/AIDS, those taking certain types of chemotherapy, and those who have recently received an organ transplant. 


What should I do if I think I am at risk for severe toxoplasmosis? 

If you are planning to become pregnant, your health care provider may test you for Toxoplasma. If the test is positive it means you have already been infected sometime in your life. There usually is little need to worry about passing the infection to your baby. If the test is negative, take necessary precautions to avoid infection (See below). 

If you are already pregnant, you and your health care provider should discuss your risk for toxoplasmosis. Your health care provider may order a blood sample for testing. 

If you have a weakened immune system, ask your doctor about having your blood tested for Toxoplasma. If your test is positive, your doctor can tell you if and when you need to take medicine to prevent the infection from reactivating. If your test is negative, it means you have never been infected and you need to take precautions to avoid infection. (See below). 



What should I do if I think I may have toxoplasmosis? 

If you suspect that you may have toxoplasmosis, talk to your health care provider. Your provider may order one or more varieties of blood tests specific for toxoplasmosis. The results from the different tests can help your provider determine if you have a Toxoplasma infection and whether it is a recent (acute) infection. 


What is the treatment for toxoplasmosis? 

Once a diagnosis of toxoplasmosis is confirmed, you and your health care provider can discuss whether treatment is necessary. In an otherwise healthy person who is not pregnant, treatment usually is not needed. If symptoms occur, they typically go away within a few weeks to months. For pregnant women or persons who have weakened immune systems, medications are available to treat toxoplasmosis. 

How can I prevent toxoplasmosis? 

There are several general sanitation and food safety steps you can take to reduce your chances of becoming infected with Toxoplasma. 

Wear gloves when you garden or do anything outdoors that involves handling soil. Cats, which may pass the parasite in their feces, often use gardens and sandboxes as litter boxes. Wash your hands well with soap and water after outdoor activities, especially before you eat or prepare any food. When preparing raw meat, wash any cutting boards, sinks, knives, and other utensils that might have touched the raw meat thoroughly with soap and hot water to avoid cross-contaminating other foods. Wash your hands well with soap and water after handling raw meat. 

Cook all meat thoroughly; that is, to an internal temperature of 160° F and until it is no longer pink in the center or until the juices become colorless. Do not taste meat before it is fully cooked. 

Do not eat any game meat, especially kangaroo meat! 



If I am at risk, would I be able to keep my cat? 

Yes, you may keep your cat if you are a person at risk for a severe infection (e.g., you have a weakened immune system or are pregnant); however, there are several safety precautions to avoid being exposed to Toxoplasma: 

Keep your cat healthy and help prevent it from becoming infected with Toxoplasma. Keep your cat indoors and feed it dry or canned cat food rather than allowing it to have access to wild birds and rodents or to food scraps. Do not feed your cat raw meat, especially kangaroo or game meat. A cat can become infected by eating infected prey or by eating raw or undercooked meat infected with the parasite. 

Do not bring a new cat into your house that might have spent time out of doors or might have been fed raw meat. Avoid stray cats and kittens and the area they have adopted as their "home." Your veterinarian can answer any other questions you may have regarding your cat and risk for toxoplasmosis. 

Have someone who is healthy and not pregnant change your cat's litter box daily. If this is not possible, wear gloves and clean the litter box every day, because the parasite found in cat feces needs one or more days after being passed to become infectious. Wash your hands well with soap and water afterwards. 

Letter to NKPC from a person who contracted toxo! 


I've just read your website regarding toxoplsmosis affecting a group of people at a dinner party. I wonder if you are aware of a similar outbreak at Maffra, near Sale in Victoria where all the attendees at the Powerscourt restaurant one night contracted toxoplasmosis after eating undercooked kangaroo meat? 

This incident occurred in August 1994. I was one of the unfortunate souls who had a particularly nasty reaction to the infection. 

Twelve years later I am still being treated for the after affects. The infection is a life-long sentence and can recur whenever you are sick with a virus or other infection (immuno-suppressed). I didn't care for the 'game' meat served at the Powerscourt restaurant and only had a nibble, but it was enough to debilitate me for years. Regards, J. 

Okay, so we contacted this unfortunate lady again, and asked for more details of her illness. Her reply is below! 


Hi Pat 

I don't know if I am typical of a toxoplasmosis sufferer, as the only other person I have spoken to who has had toxo is my husband (from the same source of infection). My husband experienced mild cold-like symptoms and that was the end of it for him. My husband and I moved to Perth from Sale, Victoria a couple days after being infected, so we weren't aware the others at the Powerscourt banquet had become ill until several months later. 

My symptoms became very severe while driving across the Nullabor, the symptoms included severe muscle and joint pain, headache and nausea. I was extremely weak and the lymph nodes in my neck swelled to an alarming size. The general effect was similar to a very bad flu. The difference between a flu and toxo was that the symptoms didn't go away after a week or so, they persisted at an extreme level for several months and then they eased into a permanent state of unwellness for the next couple of years. 

The ongoing unwellness included flu-like symptoms of neck-ache, aching joints, extreme fatigue, difficulty concentrating and some sort-term memory problems. The next nine years have been typified by daily (chronic) fatigue and milder flu-like symptoms. I have since learned that the toxo infection caused my adrenal gland to shut down, which caused the fatigue. 

After 12 years, I still manage the toxo on a daily basis. I have learned to ration my energy, so that I make choices all day long about the priority I give to one activity over another. I know that if I do the weekly shopping, I shouldn't also spend an hour at the gym having a work out. If I do combine the two activities in one day, we eat a very easy to cook meal that night and no other household chores are done. I drink coffee and diet-Pepsi all day long as a form of self-medication, the caffeine keeps me going. 

Three years ago, I found a GP who had investigated the effects of severe infection on the adrenal gland. It was this marvellous man who tested my adrenal gland and found that it only functioned at a level of 1 out 12 ( nine being the average function level). My GP has me on a course of a natural hormone, called DHEA, which is specially compounded for me by a specialist pharmacist and I also take tablets containing selenium. Between the two medications, my adrenal gland function has improved from 1, to 3 out of 12 over the past three years. You can see that my path back to good health is a long one. 

I was an Air Force officer at the time of my infection, I was category one (MEDCAT 1) fitness and had no underlying immuno-suppressive issues. I suffered the indignity of eight separate AIDS tests administered by the eight separate doctors and specialist I went to looking for help. The general thought was that only immuno-suppressed people would have a severe reaction to toxo. The doctors were wrong. 

I was given no treatment and told to 'tough it out'. I would never wish this illness onto anyone else, but it would be satisfying if the doctors and specialists who saw me, could experience one day in my shoes, just long enough to understand how callous their attitude was. 

I don't know if the medical fraternity has brought itself up to date on the management of toxoplasmosis yet. I suspect most are still operating in ignorance and quoting from medical text books they used 30 years ago at uni. I hope not. 

The bad-flu toxo symptoms recur whenever I have other infections or my system is run down. The toxo symptoms are quite distinctive so I can tell them apart from other illnesses. This is an illness I have to manage for the rest of my life, and one which can go on to do serious damage to my organs (ie lesions on the optic nerve, heart and brain) if not kept in check. 

If my story can help prevent even one person from suffering the debilitation of toxoplasmosis infection, then I will feel my experiences over the past 12 years haven't been for nothing. 

Regards, J.



Pregnancy precautions! 

Congenital toxoplasmosis is a special form in which an unborn child is infected via the placenta. This is the reason that pregnant women should be checked to see if they have a titer to toxoplasmosis. A titer indicates previous exposure and largely ensures the unborn baby's safety. If a woman receives her first exposure to Toxoplasma while pregnant then the baby is at particular risk. 

A woman with no previous exposure should avoid handling raw meat, exposure to cat faeces, and gardening (a common place to find cat feces). Most cats are not actively shedding oocysts and so are not a danger, but the risk may be reduced further by having the litterbox emptied daily (oocysts require longer than a single day to become infective), and/or by having someone else empty the litterbox. 

Treatment is very important for recently infected pregnant women, to prevent infection of the foetus. Since a baby's immune system does not develop fully for the first year of life, and the resilient cysts that form throughout the body are very difficult to eradicate with antiprotozoans, an infection can be very serious in the very young. 

A woman in Australia who unknowingly ate kangaroo meat in a Sydney restuarant was one of 12 diners who became infected with toxo. Her baby was subsequently born blind.

END QUOTE


----------



## dynea (Oct 20, 2006)

*Lol*



richardwells said:


> You must be a darned good jumper, so I guess I'll take your word for it...
> 
> In any case, I note that you wish you were still in Townsville...I lived in the Cairns area for a while and spent quite a bit of time in Townsville...It would have to be one of the most beautiful places in the world...I had such good times there...I always wanted to move there, but instead I got sucked into western NSW - a dry hole at the end of the earth where everything is in a state of either death, dying or deterioration. My wife is a psychologist (no, she didn't involved with me for a research project!) and of course she hasn't been able to work in all the years that we have been here - such a waste...
> 
> ...




I'm glad to see that you have got a sence of humer Richard...LOL:lol: 
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 
:shock: Sounds as though we arnt that differant after all, I'm in the same predicament. Lived in the beautiful tropical North Qld, and ended up here in Western NSW. they say that QLD is the land of the big pineapple. But i feel like I copped one from behind when i moved here.:shock: 
And whats with all the god damb FLYS... if only we could eradicate them...:x

Oh yeah I forgot.... I'm only 5ft 2 I cant jump to save my life...LOL


----------



## JandC_Reptiles (Oct 20, 2006)

I will have to read this entire thread 1 day lol
The extremely large posts turned me off a little


----------



## Lucas (Oct 20, 2006)

I tend to believe that I'd have more of a risk of haveing a plane fall on my car while driving to the shop to buy the roo meat tho. Thats the joy of life. Not one thing is without some degree of risk, even eating. I've had salmonella twice but I still eat chicken. If I am to get toxoplasmosis it better be from an under cooked roo steak, not the neighbours cat that defecated in my garden.

I'll combat any parasite or bacterium that wants to infest my body with a good diet of fruits, veg, legumes and soy products. Who knows, maybe the soy products will reverse my natural testosterone levels and give me a nice C cup. 

They say idle minds are the devils work, If I had a C cup I'd never have idle hands.

If it feels good, do it. If it tastes good, eat it.

Lucas.


----------



## dynea (Oct 20, 2006)

Lucas said:


> I tend to believe that I'd have more of a risk of haveing a plane fall on my car while driving to the shop to buy the roo meat tho. Thats the joy of life. Not one thing is without some degree of risk, even eating. I've had salmonella twice but I still eat chicken. If I am to get toxoplasmosis it better be from an under cooked roo steak, not the neighbours cat that defecated in my garden.
> 
> I'll combat any parasite or bacterium that wants to infest my body with a good diet of fruits, veg, legumes and soy products. Who knows, maybe the soy products will reverse my natural testosterone levels and give me a nice C cup.
> 
> ...





:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

LOL... YOur so funny... I nearly pee'd 

Well not really but at least you understand how funny I found it.

Look it took TEN pages before we got off Topic. Pritty good debate I recon.

LOL even if R. Wells Cut and paste 7pages of it...LOL


----------



## Lucas (Oct 20, 2006)

I enjoyed writing it too


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*Save the Fly, but Watch Out for Pineapples...*



dynea said:


> I'm glad to see that you have got a sence of humer Richard...LOL:lol:
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> :shock: Sounds as though we arnt that differant after all, I'm in the same predicament. Lived in the beautiful tropical North Qld, and ended up here in Western NSW. they say that QLD is the land of the big pineapple. But i feel like I copped one from behind when i moved here.:shock:
> And whats with all the god damb FLYS... if only we could eradicate them...:x
> Oh yeah I forgot.... I'm only 5ft 2 I cant jump to save my life...LOL



Oh my God...You're in hell too?? Oh I am so sorry for any hurt that I may have caused you...No one deserves to live here, AND have me on their back as well ! That's cruelty of the kind I normally associate with THE MOCKED ONES 

And...do be careful about the Flies though, you obviously haven't heard about my Save the Fly Campaign...and as for the Protecting the Pineapple Petition...well, I won't go there...

And some think I'm 7ft tall and related to William Wallace and can Jump high enough for both of us...but you can't believe everything that you hear...or can you?

Richard Wells


----------



## dynea (Oct 20, 2006)

Actually Richard on a serious note. Maybe your wife is in the best place at the moment. With the drought the way that it is, alot of the farmers could do with a person who has that kind of experiance.


----------



## Lucas (Oct 20, 2006)

dynea said:


> Actually Richard on a serious note. Maybe your wife is in the best place at the moment. With the drought the way that it is, alot of the farmers could do with a person who has that kind of experiance.



Not a pretty picture is it. Alot can be said for regrowth forests thoughI fear its a little late.


----------



## richardwells (Oct 20, 2006)

*There are no great roos, only ordinary roos that look great*



dynea said:


> Actually Richard on a serious note. Maybe your wife is in the best place at the moment. With the drought the way that it is, alot of the farmers could do with a person who has that kind of experience.



Well, of course you are quite right...without needing to spell out the problem...it really is very bad...we already know of two that haven't made it, but we are both trying to keep as many on track as possible...But the hidden problem is the impact on the farmer's kids...it is absolutely horrific...and very difficult for anyone to deal with because they are made to try and tough it out...when really they need serious help.

Anyway I have solutions to the problem, and wherever possible try and help where I can but it's all about having the power to really make a difference...and those that have it are run by the bean-counters it would seem. But what is really needed is rain and lots of it and very soon. Nevertheless, I have devised a plan to save the State on multiple levels and in so doing the entire Country, and you will hear more about it due course. Some on this Group would know that as the President of a minor political party, I have quite a lot of contact with various politicians and I must say that things are starting to get into gear in regards to the rural crisis. Our group has a powerful alternative to the present situation, and in the March 2007 election we will stand candidates in every one of the 93 electorates. Most of our policies are scheduled for release later in the year, followed by a fairly intensive media blitz a few weeks prior to polling day. Recently I spoke to a gathering of over 3000 people and it almost caused a riot, so I am confident that we will have some success at the Ballot Box next year. You know, the really strange thing is that should we get even 2 or 3 of our candidates across the line, someone like me could actually hold the balance of power in New South Wales following the election ...and I have a short list of prerequisites for the major boys to consider before any of them will get our votes...and you will love that list 

Till later...

Richard Wells


----------



## dynea (Oct 21, 2006)

Well well, I thought your name sounded familiar. And concidering you have only had 30 post I new it wasn't from here.


----------



## OdessaStud (Oct 21, 2006)

Hey Dynea we should have known only a polli can be so long winded LOL no offence Mr Wells.
Good luck getting the rest of party on your side I believe if anyone can maybe it is you but getting the other parties on side over the roo culling issue may be a different kettle of fish considering the present government advocates the culling of roos.JMO
Odie


----------



## dynea (Oct 21, 2006)

*LOL Odie*

:lol:


OdessaStud said:


> Hey Dynea we should have known only a polli can be so long winded LOL no offence Mr Wells.
> Odie



:lol: Yeah thats true... and here I was telling him to go to Little Johnny...LOL
He peobably drinks tea with Johnny.:shock:


----------



## alumba (Oct 21, 2006)

As I stated before in the croc culling thread which im all for mite I add

Humans are a cancer to the earth we will keep growing using our host (mother earth) in till there is nothing left. Something like that i stated

but it is true and there is no cure for it unless we start sterilizing the human population which wouldn’t be a bad idea


----------



## Lucas (Oct 21, 2006)

alumba said:


> Humans are a cancer to the earth we will keep growing using our host (mother earth there is no cure for it unless we start sterilizing the human population which wouldn’t be a bad idea






Ooooooooo. 

The cats in with the chickens now. I'm gonna enjoy this:lol:


----------



## slim6y (Oct 21, 2006)

alumba said:


> As I stated before in the croc culling thread which im all for mite I add
> 
> Humans are a cancer to the earth we will keep growing using our host (mother earth) in till there is nothing left. Something like that i stated
> 
> but it is true and there is no cure for it unless we start sterilizing the human population which wouldn’t be a bad idea



Is it you first for sterilization?

My eco footprint is damned low I might say... I don't own a car for one... that saves about 50% of my eco footprint... And that's by choice too... Not because it got towed and I couldn't afford to release it...

I eat cow tho... and lamb... eco footprint no no's...

But I catch the bus, walk and cycle everywhere... 

Either way we go... Killing crocs will not release the cancer on the earth.. feeding populations to the crocs will be a start... Should we do it in gender? religion? race? hmmmm.. Lets start with the chinese and indians... isn't there 2 billion of them, who will miss a few (incidentally, please note the sarcasm in my voice/typing - this is not a serious tone at all).

Crocs deserve their freedom and their land and NO ONE should cull them at all! They are farmed for meat so leave it at that.. .Unlike the roo which is not farmed!

Do not agree with culling crocs... Not ever, not now, not anytime!

And no matter what science you push, to me it won't be a good enough argument to kill a croc!

It's all a croc I say!

Good luck with ya croc killing stance Alumba... And add to it your human sterilization stance...

You do realise there are better ways... and as I have said all the way through this thread.. and for the fifth time... We continuially change our environment to suit our lifestyles.. It's time we changed our lifestyles to suit our environment....

It's all in the attitude alumba... and it's the attitude we have to change!!!


----------



## Lucas (Oct 21, 2006)

well said Slim6y. Behind you 100%


----------



## alumba (Oct 21, 2006)

slim6y said:


> Is it you first for sterilization?
> You do realise there are better ways... and as I have said all the way through this thread.. and for the fifth time... We continuially change our environment to suit our lifestyles.. It's time we changed our lifestyles to suit our environment....


 
What ways are there please elaborate?

Changing our life style to suit the environment well I am, as much as I can at this stage anyway but you have to convince a hell of a lot of people before we can start to change anything and im afraid there a lot more of them than there are us, and I mean those that don’t care whether they kill the environment or not. All I can do is my little bit and hope it rubs off on other people around me and if that means culling croc for the good of the population that is croc population so be it. 

Moreover, I hoped people would have seen the funny side of human sterilization :lol:


----------



## Mayo (Oct 21, 2006)

Sorry Richard I'm back and I still can't see any answers. Good to see that you have joined the arguement Lucas you might be able to give me some better answers, the politician is ducking around the issue at the moment but that is what they do. Skippy does taste nice and untill I moved to QLD it was a reqular meal. Don't no enough about Croc culls so I won't weigh into that debate. Yes I would agree that the human population has grown out of control and to steal someones signature " We need to add more chlorine to the gene pool." Or a licence program put into place but if you want to steralise you can start in your own area. So give us a little about your back ground Lucas so I can see where you are coming from, and let's get this debate back on track. Practical answers let's have them.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 22, 2006)

alumba said:


> What ways are there please elaborate?
> 
> Changing our life style to suit the environment well I am, as much as I can at this stage anyway but you have to convince a hell of a lot of people before we can start to change anything and im afraid there a lot more of them than there are us, and I mean those that don’t care whether they kill the environment or not. All I can do is my little bit and hope it rubs off on other people around me and if that means culling croc for the good of the population that is croc population so be it.
> 
> Moreover, I hoped people would have seen the funny side of human sterilization :lol:



Well first way - with crocs, is relocation relocation reloction... Assuming you don't relocate them to a large male's territory they should be fine.

Second way - Encourage the reptiles... Because they're so territorial (salty's) then there's on;y one large male and maybe some smaller, less dangerous females who are willing to submit to the male. If this is the case, one male is a tourist attraction in central Cairns or Darwin or wherever... Signs are carefully located and eventually when the food source runs out (namely tourists) the croc moves on... There's not even a need to relocate them.

There have been something like (sorry, not quoting) 36 deaths attributed to crocodiles in the last 200 years. I think more people have died from bee stings and vending machines falling on them that being eaten by a croc. I realise an 8 year old was eaten this year in NT. But she was on the water's edge and in the middle of no-where... So there is a risk there. But not enough to warrant culling because they're over populating. 

As far as I am aware, crocs control their own population because of their territorial nature. I believe freshies on the other hand are probably in large supply. But they cause little or no damage to farming stocks or humans. In fact they're particularly scared of humans.

So your argument fro culling better be to stop the spread of a disease through our native wildlife because seriously, populations should be high of this animal, and we should be wary of such! But not to kill!

And yes, I saw the funny side to the sterilization argument... Hence my sarcastic answer. I don't dis anyone's opinions here, I just think mine is correct haha!

The to cull or not to cull question still seems unanswered - it is open ended. And having a politician and wildlife 'experts' here, we should be on for a few more eccentric and opinionated posts... 

When we change about 5% of the world's populations' attitude is when we change the WHOLE world! 

5% isn't much.. but appartently, I once read, if you can change just 5% - you've changed everyone! Don't know if that's a bumper sticker or an acceptable quote... 

So both me and you Alumba... We have started... Now just another 532 498 212 people to go!


----------



## Pat99rick (Oct 22, 2006)

*Going, going, going, go........*

I joined this forum for reptile information, and I’m amazed at the quantity and quality of the forum information. However I’m also interested in kangaroos and other wildlife, so when I found this thread it took me quite a while to read all the posts. I agree with Richard Wells, but I must say I’m surprised at the amount of mis-information that still is being quoted by some otherwise clever people.

I was living in Central NSW in the ‘70’s, and we used to drive to an area not far from town just before dusk, and watch countless thousands, perhaps millions of kangaroos hopping into the wheat fields. Sadly that’s no longer the case. The big mobs are gone forever. Every state in Australia, (except perhaps Victoria where they don’t have a commercial kill because there are not enough kangas), has a situation of quasi-extinction, or regional extinction. The Federal government states we currently have 25 million kangaroos in Australia. However no one can find them, not even the shooters. There are now only 5 or 6 fulltime shooters in NSW, the rest are on the dole and/or working part time, and only shoot at the weekends.

Dozens of chiller boxes have closed, and the Industry is in decline, even though overseas markets are strong because the meat is cheap. Every State has similar problems.10 years of drought, and consistent, unrelenting commercial and non-commercial shooting has left our kangaroos in a situation closely resembling the eradication of the bison herds in America. This year our organisation undertook an undercover survey of kangaroo matters in W. NSW and W. Queensland. With a private detective, (for evidentiary purposes) an ex-kangaroo shooter, and a few others we drove 8000 k’s around NSW and Qld. We inspected properties and chillerboxes, we talked to shooters, farmers, and shopkeepers and did lots more that we can’t talk about yet. We hope to release the results soon, but make no mistake, kangaroo populations have crashed, and the matter is very, very serious. Even in WA, where kangaroo numbers have always been low, shooters are trying to access golf courses and conservation parks to get enough kangaroos. The Government knows all this, but doesn’t care.

But there still seems to persist the hoary old theory that we humans provided food and shelter for kangas, and that’s why they are in so-called “plague” proportions, which usually means half a dozen resting under a tree (if they can find a tree.) Studies by Dr John Auty have shown that in 1860 there were enough natural grasslands Australia wide to support 400 million kangaroos. And with 5 major river systems flowing across Australia, plenty of natural lagoons and wetlands, and good constant rainfall, kangaroos couldn’t get a drink until farmers arrived and dug dams?

I also noted on the Forum that some people quote the Pukapunyal kill as being justified. Well, I was part of the protest that eventually stopped the kill. The reason they wanted to kill the kangaroos is only because the local Federal Member’s family were grazing stock on agistment at Pucka, and they wanted the grass for their cattle. The kill was stopped because the Defence Force was seriously embarrassed by the bad publicity, as it should have been. As well, Pucka has a huge high fence around it, which trapped the kangaroos inside. We suggested they pull down the fence in strategic places so the kangas could spread out into the adjacent conservation reserves, but they wouldn’t do that because the kangas might go onto farmlands and upset more farmers. The kangaroos were not starving or diseased, and had plenty of feed. I have a lot of experience with kangaroos, and I went into Puka with others and had a good look for myself. There is lots of other mis-information being peddled on this thread to attempt to justify the commercial kill.

Make no mistake, kangaroos are in serious, serious trouble. The State and Federal Governments know this too, but couldn’t care less. I don’t hide behind a nom-de-plume either. Pat O’Brien, President, Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 22, 2006)

I don't know where you went walking through Pucka dude but you must have had your eye's shut. I no what a diseased Roo looks like and when you can walk right upto them and there eyes are all white, and you can see every bone in there body because they are starved so bad, something is wrong. I don't need to be a Vet to diagnose that there were some fairly bad diseases they were carrying. You sound like another bleeding heart, if you don't like to no that this sort of thing has to happen turn the other way and pretend that it doesn't. I am getting harsh but some of you don't acknowledge that there is a problem and I have seen first hand that in a lot of areas there is.


----------



## TOMatoPASTE (Oct 22, 2006)

i agree. none of us really want to see hundreds of animals killed at once but it is necessary atleast before we regain control of our habits. its far better ot humanely cull and use/eat the meat and skin rather than them all dyeing in horrible surcumstances of starvation and disease from overpopulation. and yeah, i think we should eat more roo meat, they re suited to our country and although dont contain the same volume of meat as a cow, im sure they survive much better than cows which have evolved in rich grass fields and not deserts. btw - that last staement is JMO and not factual, just seemingly logical. still, we do need to take responsibility for our previous actions and sadly, some future actions


----------



## alumba (Oct 22, 2006)

If we keep relocating these, might I add beautiful animals, sooner or later the population will build up in those areas. Soon food will start to run out and animals will start to starve. 

As we get more and more populated and we are consuming more and more land, there will be few places left for these animals to be relocated , so the way I see it is we have one of three choices; relocate them and let them eventually eat them self out of house and home (due to over population), we could stop expanding into or near their habitat or we could cull them back. I hope for the second option but I doubt that will happen in my life time. What people have to understand is that I’m not out to try and convince people to kill crocs for the hell of it nor go willy nilly destroying croc populations. Culling should have to have strict guidelines. Registered shooters, wether it be parks and wildlife or pro hunters, have to abide by because the last thing we need is to make another mistake like we did in the 60s and 70s where we almost wiped out the population of crocs. 

What I would like to see happen is more organisations like Steve Erwin’s wildlife worrier foundation being created so we can free up more land so that these crocs CAN be relocated there with the out worry of people wiping out there habitat, and I would hope that the government would do there bit as well but in reality I don’t see that will happening any time soon

All I want is what’s best for the animal whether it be crocs, roos or our beautiful koala. 
If we can avoid culling them with a long term solution I’m all for it, but relocation is a short term solution. In the long term it won’t do these animals any good. Unless more foundations and government support is created to free up more land so that these animals will have some where to go. (An area big enough for these animals to live in comfortably.) 

Some times we have to be cruel to be kind.

At the other end of the scale we have the freshy. We don’t have to relocate them any where because the cane toad has taken care of their population numbers.

I can understand your view on things because that was my view at one stage, but after working with crocs and talking to people in this area where I used to work, I have changed my views (please don’t think I am trying to change yours because im not) on this matter it is about population survival and yes one view I don’t agree with MONEY.

I think it is best that we agree to disagree and get on with helping the people on this forum that need it!


See ya slim6y it has been good debating with you on this matter
I hope we could talk under more pleasant terms next time
And im not being sarcastic!

Thanks mate 

Cheers Matt


----------



## coatesy (Oct 22, 2006)

I do not belive in culling animals because simply there are too many. it is important to preserve natural habitat for animals, any kind. i believe only introduced pests should be culled (like the rotten can toad - yuck) as introducted animals tend to prey upon natural species incorperated with habitat decline many are now becomming endangered. There are enough animals dying evry day due to raod accidents, habitat destruction (human created) bush fires etc not to cull animals. There are always two sides to every story and i suppose if anyone out there feels strongly about animals and the envoronment shouldn't we start at home?


----------



## Mayo (Oct 22, 2006)

To preserve natural habitat culling is required so that the over population of Roo's does not destroy there own habitat


----------



## slim6y (Oct 23, 2006)

alumba said:


> See ya slim6y it has been good debating with you on this matter
> I hope we could talk under more pleasant terms next time
> And im not being sarcastic!
> 
> ...




Dude... It's all been pleasant... believe me I'm used to hardcore debate... I teach science, physics and chemistry and I am used to trying to encourage people to believe what you can't see... Even if sometimes I don't believe... hehe...

I certainly don't get angry at people's views... they're just plain wrong 

I can safely say you have been brainwashed alumba (another bit of sarcasm sorry, it just doesn't stop does it?).

Ok.. Back to the hard yacker...

Welcome Pat99rick - a very informative read... but who do I believe now? Mayo or you??? It's so tough....

I just talked to a wildlife expert... here are somethings he said... 

1: Kangaroos are soft hooved and they are top grazers, in other words they leave behind roots for new emerging shoots of grasses etc.

2: Goats are hard hooved and responsible for the deserts of africa... and apparently WA has large stocks of goat... remove the goat and encourage the roo back...

3: When and where possible encourage domestic stoock of roos. This isn't as impossible as it sounds - we have the land, we have the resources and we have the drought tolerant roo!

4: Feed and domesticate and breed in good traits and less gamey tasting meats. Market it. The domestic roo will be easy to market... And if numbers are in such 'plague' proportions then surely a few domestic starters won't go amiss...

5: A roo can have one in the pouch, on on the way and one on the ground in the correct conditions... surely that makes for great KFC (Kangaroo Fried Carcasses).

6: it's obvious domestic stock breeds - look at Lucas' avatar... it's proof in the making!

7: Roos have survived countless droughts, cyclones, predators etc... Let's re-encourage them back to their native lands, loose the goats and a few sheep... stuff the indo's and their need for live goats... it's time we farmed roo and had roo on our plates! Feeding domesticated stock will eventually allow for better tasting less gamey meat!

Forgive me if this is a load of tripe... but I seriously can't see why it's not done... or is it? has it been trialled? are we all in the "if it doesn't work now it will never work" mindset?

If their are diseased and sickly roos - due to starvation.. feed them! Get rid of the sheep and cattle from the area, encourage healthy populations of roos...

Don't say it can't be done... we dropped food into north african communitiesd in the 80s, and now their populations are thriving so much they need war to kill themselves off again...

It is possible... We can easily get food into their areas and start to encourage roo on the table...

Roo leather is better than cow leather... 

Roo is just better all over... and what's more... it's NATIVE to our fine land... No other country can ever have it... It's ours and ours alone!

Yummy... i'm having joey fried rice tonight...and then tomorrow roo ear shishkebabs...

are you going to tell me that it can't be done? Because I know that it can.. we just choose NOT to.

We do it with crocs... we farm and eat and use them! 

Well, let's all go for a beer, have a roo steak and a croco sarny... But none of this XXXX stuff - let's get a real beer... Macs or Speights... from the pride of the south... somewhere where possum is served in stew... yum....


----------



## Mayo (Oct 23, 2006)

It can and is being done, but it is not very profitable. Many people will not eat Roo due to all the scare mongaring of what you can conceivably catch from eating it. There is not a lot of edible meat on a Roo. The costs of keeping a roo for harvest is far to high, the fencing maintanance alone is very high. Have you ever noticed that Roo's are always scratching on the ground even if it is green, they do eat the root's. Cull's on goats are done but eradication of the goats, like cane toads has not occurred but we do keep trying, the same people that do Roo culls also do goats pigs etc. As much as I would like for Roo meat to be sold in greater quantity's and maybe even through places like KFC I doubt it will happen any time soon, unless there is a major change in Aussie eating habbit's. Roo's are a hardy species and will bounce back hard and fast from almost anything we do to them, or anything nature can throw at them. To feed the Roo's that are dying from starvation at pucka. They are dying due to over population if you continue to feed them they will breed faster, natural selection and nature was doing it's best to cull them but unable to do it on it's own. And there are no sheep or cattle on Pucka so that wasn,t the problem. I would happily eat more Roo if I could get more quality Roo, but since I don't live on the farm anymore I can't just find a healthy one to knock off for a meal. Good thought's though, and a debate like this is very healthy, and I have no ill feeling toward anyone so far, I would happily sit down to discuss these matters over a drink with anyone.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 23, 2006)

100% backing on that last line there Mayo... I really like how this debate has come across. Most people got their opinions out and weren't attacking actual people here. it's also had a good range of people here too... 

Like I said I am suprised at how people feel about this subject... extreme views and liberal views alike!

I also would eat roo.. if it tasted any good... It's lean, it's low in cholestrol and high in protein... I think macca's should incorperate it in a burger and HJ also should encourage the aussie burger with roo!

It's all about perception to whether or not we would have saved the animals at pucka (which incidentally, not being local, I know little about). I know you say just feeding them would encourage more growth... but weren't they located in a small area??? I don't know enough to make comments... All i am saying is it's perception of use and requirements...

Had that been a different commodity (maybe not even a living one) we (as humans) would have gone out of our way to make it right... and made money out of it... But the expense of keeping roos (as you suggest fencing... but my possible suggestion is leave them unfenced, and attract domestic stocks to the area and leave them to run wild... If you crop the roos food you will have domestic roos... and therefore able to kill farmed roos... that will in turn keep populations static... It wouldn't be too different to sheep farming, but without fences... If that was the case... then you won't have instances like Pucka!

Quality of roo meat will increase as they are feed on high protien grain. 

Cooking roo meat thoroughly, not unlike chicken, destroys any harmful micro-organisms.

I guess after a while, like sheep and cattle, we will shower the roos with pesticides and chemicals to destroy any bacteria etc... But that's a long way off.

I know people already thought of this, and im not the first to suggest it... But it's all about marketing... Don't we have a dairy board here? don't we have a lamb and pork board here? is there a roo board? a marketing strategy? Some big wigs in sydney would love this low cholestrol, no fat, high protein roo diet... Tell ya, i do!

Can't answer the eats roots and leaves comments... But I am sure that the roo does damage some vegetation, but not anywhere near as bad as goats, sheep and cattle! would you agree to that?


----------



## Mayo (Oct 23, 2006)

Quote:
Can't answer the eats roots and leaves comments... But I am sure that the roo does damage some vegetation, but not anywhere near as bad as goats, sheep and cattle! would you agree to that?
SLiM6y

I do agree they are a natural species and do less damage than imports, but when they over populate they become very destructive, and do damage but where sheep and cattle are only able to do damage in there paddocks Roo's damage is wide spread. Keeping livestock without fences causes many problems and therefor could result in more damage to the environment


----------



## Pat99rick (Oct 25, 2006)

*More about kangaroos*

It's lean, it's low in cholesterol and high in protein, I read.…Well, so is lean beef, lamb, pork and chicken, and none of them are shot in a dusty paddock, carted around on a truck all night and eventually put in an old chillerbox, which is often unable to maintain proper refrigeration in the heat of an Australian summer. Every morning when the box is opened to put in more roos and pigs, the temperature goes up through the roof, and takes all day to come down again. Then they may wait for up to two or three weeks, along with the mud encrusted wild pigs in the same box, before being carted over rough country roads to a processing plant, again with the mud encrusted wild pigs. Then its packed in a black tray, and gassed to make it last another three weeks on the supermarket shelf. Healthy meat? I don’t think so!

I’ve read all these posts, and its pretty obvious that at least one or two posters are kangaroo shooters, or have been before they ran out of kangaroos to shoot.

One issue that no one has raised (not surprisingly) is the cruelty. The RSPCA has estimated that 1% of kangaroos shot are not headshot, but body shot. In reality the estimate is likely to be much higher than that. As well as that, the in-pouch joeys are pulled from the dead mothers pouch and decapitated, or have their head smashed in, as required under a “Code of Practice” that is totally unenforceable, and accepted by no one except a few politicians, bureaucrats, and those involved in this disgusting Industry. Then there are the ex-pouch but still dependent joeys who flee into the night in terror when their Mum is shot, to die of starvation or predation. No one wants to know about them, either!

As for farming kangaroos, its illegal in every State, and no government would support it anyway. It’s not going to happen. Why can’t the kangaroos just be left alone? With most of Australia’s soil poisoned, dead, or depleted, and half of Australia’s farmers propped up by billions of dollars of drought and other subsidies, why do we have to cruelly wipe out our kangaroos for the benefit of subsistence farmers? 

We have been heavily and unsustainably killing many millions of kangaroos for the last 20 years. What has this slaughter done to stop erosion, land degradation, and making farmers more sustainable and profitable? Absolutely nothing!

Pat OBrien, President, Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc.


----------



## Retic (Oct 25, 2006)

Here here Pat, couldn't agree more, well said.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

Pat would you prefer they were just shot and left where they lay. Have you ever tried Roo as a meat it tastes good to me, if cooked right. Cruelty well save your bleeding heart dude coz there are just some facts of life that some people can't handle. If you eat meat of any kind I could create an arguement of cruelty against you. Yes the young will some times die and preditation will occur but others in the wild have to eat as well. I was not aware that farming skippy's was illegal but am not sure of that, as I did read an article on farming Roo's but it might have been a study into farming Roo's. I wouldn't count out skippy ever being farmed as a new livestock, I can't see the profits being high, but as someone mentioned earlier with the right advertising could take off. Government's can change there mind's on a wim and there would be people to support it. It would be a diverse food source that would be more environmentally friendly than cattle or sheep.Yes I ocasionally shot Roo's when I go home to the farm, it's about the only time these day's I get to have a feed of Roo. This country rides on the shoulders of the farmers how else do you get your food. Do you grow your own fruit and veg, kill your own beasts for meat etc, I doubt it, that would mean you got your hands dirty. Did Mr Wells put you onto this site I just have to ask ?


----------



## slim6y (Oct 25, 2006)

Pat I am partly on your view and partly off it... 

But I am more leaning towards Mayo's views (seeing as he/she (sorry mayo, im not sure) has adopted part of my view).

I am lead to another story... Sometimes education just isn't enough. Take for example the non-useful research (and hence slaughter) of whales for the Japenese market. 

Now I have been on a boat full of Japenese who didn't even realise their country kill the animals... Ironically, they don't seem to see this gigantic grace of the sea and the slab of meat and blubber on their dinner plate as the same animal... And somehow, we're the same with cattle, sheep...

I was only in the country for three weeks when a radio investigative journo asked me a question "Would you eat kangaroo meat?"

My answer was pure and simple.. Yes, and I already have. It tasted good.

She then asked, but what about the skippy factor...

I said "Are you implying that because they're cute we shoudln't eat them? (who became the journo now?)

Of course her reply was yes...

So I promplty replied... "Have you ever seen a lamb?"

Would you, pat, go to the same lengths to save an endangered bee? Or even an endagewred mosquito?

I personally share your conservation view, but not to the same extreme. There's absolutely NO reason to not farm these prime animals so both their numbers and stocks are no longer limited. 

Farming of a native animal is not unheard of... NZ does it with mussels... i know, they're not roos... But they're farmed...

The roo board could market and sell this fine meat... We have Sam Neil advertising beef - so hugh jackman can advertise roo!

What we have to breed out of the aussie hunter is that killing any native creatures in australia is plane stupid and wrong... Go shoot a goat or a pig, but not a roo! Not a croc... Noticing some crocs in townsville...

It's the attitudes again that have to change... if we don't change their attitude we loose this wonderful resource over time.

The thing i can't understand is - why, if it is true, roo farming is illegal? That's gotta be boll ox if that's true... roo farming could easily save the roo!


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

Sometimes education just isn't enough, you need a public face like Hugh Jackman to advertise it as you said Slim6y. I don't know which part of your view I adopted but it must have been the same as mine as I am a stubbern bugger and very opinionated. Most city dwellers don't no where there food comes from, look at Babe the pig, if you told people today that they were eating babe they would freak out. I saw part of a lecture from Dr Suzuki, from the world environmental commitee. They did a study of american and Canadian kids on where they thought there meat and veg came from and a large percentage didn't know the basics. You could advertise it as super meat or something not mentioning it was Skippy and people would probably be less concerned that they were eating a national emblem. The bleeding hearts would just look the other way as they do for all the other meats and it would be all good.


----------



## Hickson (Oct 25, 2006)

Pat99rick said:


> It's lean, it's low in cholesterol and high in protein, I read.…Well, so is lean beef, lamb, pork and chicken, and none of them are shot in a dusty paddock, carted around on a truck all night and eventually put in an old chillerbox, which is often unable to maintain proper refrigeration in the heat of an Australian summer. Every morning when the box is opened to put in more roos and pigs, the temperature goes up through the roof, and takes all day to come down again. Then they may wait for up to two or three weeks, along with the mud encrusted wild pigs in the same box, before being carted over rough country roads to a processing plant, again with the mud encrusted wild pigs. Then its packed in a black tray, and gassed to make it last another three weeks on the supermarket shelf. Healthy meat? I don’t think so!



If you have proof of this, then why is kangaroo meat available in our supermarkets?



Mayo said:


> Many people will not eat Roo due to all the scare mongaring of what you can conceivably catch from eating it.



Hix


----------



## Pat99rick (Oct 25, 2006)

*More about kangaroos*

I can’t understand why anyone would want to farm kangaroos. The economics don’t stack up, the farmers only want to farm cows and sheep, and as I said earlier its illegal in every State and also illegal under the Federal EPBC Act. It would prove nothing, and within a few years anyone foolish enough to take it on would be trying to breeding animals that had more meat on them, shorter legs, etc, and we would lose the original kangaroos anyway, just as we have lost the original cows.

There’s something else. Overseas markets are booming for kangaroo meat, because its cheap, and the so-called “sustainable” quotas can’t fill those orders. The Industry doest have to buy land or breeding stock. However what many people don’t realise is that the biggest demand is for salami and sausage meat. Offal, trimmings, waste meat, and the forequarter bones are put through a huge crusher and turned into paste, then exported to make salamis and sausages in protein poor countries. Salamis are not cooked either, they are cured by fermentation, so any bugs are still in the product. Don’t eat imported salamis. No one will ever know how many Russians or other Europeans we have killed with this product.

One post asked about where I get my food from. As we all know the vast bulk of our farm produce is exported, and we could feed every Australian on the product that comes out of Tasmania alone, or even Victoria. There are plenty of farmers who don’t kill kangaroos, and are quite happy to share the grass. I know many of them, in fact I used to be one myself. And Hix asked if I have proof of how the product is mishandled, yes we do, including chiller box temperature charts, which we will be using in a Court case next year. The Kangaroo Management Plans also have written into them the appalling “Code of Practice” and other points I’ve raised. They are available for perusal on the Federal Gov. DEH website. We have also raised these matters at four AAT Court cases, the Transcripts and Findings can be found at www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com The State and Federal governments know all this too, but just don’t care!

Why don’t we just leave the kangaroos alone? We don’t have to kill them! As I said, many farmers can live with them, but some people just like to kill things for the heck of it.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

Wow who would have guessed, an extreamist web site. Had a good read shot holes in most of there so called facts, and no others to be complete bollocks. The site contridicts it's self a lot, and doesn't acknowledge a lot of facts. Seems to be trying to tie the legal system up with a lot of junk. Tourists don't see wild kangaroo's because they rarely leave the tourist destinations and city's. Police can't be everywhere at one to police everything. Forign employees are used because some people don't want to work here in Aust, they prefer the doll instead. Yes we have mismanaged the land by using european farming methods but that is fast changing, We no they are not working so we are creating new ways to do things. Yes Roo's are hit by cars but so are many other species. Roo meat was potentially another meat source in Britain untill fanatics like that lot spread there bollocks about cruelty where do they think the rest of there weat comes from. There was a potential market which could have turned government to legalise Roo farms to get better quality meat if quality Roo meat shooters would be less inclined to shoot wild Roo's because there value would drop wouldn't it. You keep losing the court cases because you don't have good evidance to back it all up. Thought to be this, suposedly this, the figures show this but we believe it to be more like that, just doesn't cut it, not with me and I'm suprise a court room even entertained you with that sort of info. If roo's were farmed then they would probably be treated, or dipped, to eradicate any diseases, bacteria or infections that could harm us those shooting Roo's for money would lose there business for quality meat and skins. Then it would really just come down to a numbers game, are there to many, or not enough. There would be no money in culling them for meat and skins, and the Roo meat industry would probably have to come under AQIS as a farmed meat, for quality assurance. Therre by bringing it to the same rules and reg's as other main line meats.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

And before I go, are you a friend of Mr Well's, still waiting for a response from him as well.


----------



## Retic (Oct 25, 2006)

I wont worry about the rest of the post but where on earth did you get the idea they use European farming methods here ? In Europe and the UK they divide land up into smallish fields and usually leave hedgerows or trees between the fields to help stop soil erosion. They also rotate crops which helps to retain fertility. There is a huge difference between European and Australian methods, here we have to contend with very poor quality soil or virtually no soil at all, in some areas one sheep requires an acre of feed to survive. 
Most of the problem is that farming consisted of ripping out virtually every tree and running hard hooved animals on the land. No similarity to European methods at all.


----------



## Dipcdame (Oct 25, 2006)

There's no real answer to this problem, if Australia had been left to itself, then what? Kangaroos take over? although, the tree dwellers like possums wouldn't be affected, this country was in perfect balance and harmony till we moved in, the Aboriginies had the best ecology principals, th3ey harvested for their own needs, and left the rest to itself, as they always have done, then we came in and took over, trying to "balance" an already great ecosystem, WE are the ones who ruined it, how the heck do we justify Rice paddys, and european style farming in a place such as this????????


----------



## Retic (Oct 25, 2006)

I agree totally, we buggered the country and will very soon start really paying the price for it. Whoever thought it was a good diea to grow rice in this country needs their heads read but I will say again we do not generally follow European farming methods, we grow the same crops and breed the same animals but the methods used are very different by necessity.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

Yes I no Boa but going back a long way we were using European farming technique, and in some industrys they are still used (old technique not the newer stuff) but if you go onto the site Pat put up www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com it is one of the points they use as there arguement.


----------



## Mayo (Oct 25, 2006)

Yes we have buggered up the country by our farming methods but that is a whole new arguement.


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 25, 2006)

Dipcdame said:


> There's no real answer to this problem, if Australia had been left to itself, then what? Kangaroos take over? although, the tree dwellers like possums wouldn't be affected, this country was in perfect balance and harmony till we moved in, the Aboriginies had the best ecology principals, th3ey harvested for their own needs, and left the rest to itself, as they always have done, then we came in and took over, trying to "balance" an already great ecosystem, WE are the ones who ruined it, how the heck do we justify Rice paddys, and european style farming in a place such as this????????



That's not entirely true. Aboriginals wiped out countless species of animals and plants soon after arriving, including some of the most awesome megafauna the planet has ever seen, some of it reptilian, including goannas which made Komodo dragons look like Garden Skinks and pythons which made Scrubbies look like Antaresia, not to mention the dozens of giant mammals, very different from anything which exists today. They burned down incredibly large amounts of forests (in many areas their method of hunting was to burn the forest down so the area was easier to move through and the animals didn't have anything to hide in - similarly destructive to our insane rice paddies etc, which you mention)... I could go on and on, suffice to say that the "Aboriginals turned up and had no impact" story is as far from the truth as you could imagine. By the time they'd been here for tens of thousands of years the continent had adapted to their presence (and in many respects was a mere shadow of what it had been prior to their arrival). The fact that they weren't causing any devestation when white people turned up is merely because they had already had tens of thousands of years to do whatever damage they were capable of. In a few thousand years, we won't be wiping anything out either, because each species will either have found a new stable niche or have become extinct.


----------



## slim6y (Oct 26, 2006)

Sdaji bites back... I think you will find Dipcdame that most aboriginal colonisers did severe damage... This happened in NZ as well with maori's. They burn forests to flush out food.

I bet Cassowary's used to be in their millions... imagine KFC back then (Kewarra Fried Cassowary). Gees, a leg of cassowary would feed the tribe for a week! Now, 5000 left in existence (I've seen 1 in the wild...).

Food was hard to come by for the aborigines so they had to use extreme methods to catch it. It was more likely the aboriginal's who were in short supply rather than the sp****ly spread out food.

If any of you were lucky enough to watch Futurama last night (Wednesday 25 October) there was an interesting penguin colony on (I think) pluto which got altered by something Bender did (I missed most of it) and their populations exploded. 

Leila had to kill the penguins but couldn't do it. And the so called conservationists also had to kill the penguins... but they were loving it!

Leila suggested if their has to be conservation perhaps it needs to be done by people who are less likely to enjoy it!

This of course was followed by Australia's version of Who's Line is it Anyway with Thank God Your Here... With the famous Jim Oine (sp??). They had a skit with all four of the actors just come back from a protest... Meant to have been a protest protecting a koala sanctuary from development... I think Jim came up with the best chant...

2, 4, 6, 8 who do we hate? Americans!

Sdaji can you give me some more info on these wiped out species? Especially the largest lizard ytou talk about and the huge snakes and other mammals... I'm keen to hear what other creatures were wiped out pre-euro times.

In New Zealand the world's largest bird was kwiped out, the Moa. Made an ostrich look like a scrub turkey.

The New Zealand Eagle soared above the land of the long white cloud - and it made the wedgetail look like a willie wagtail! It was big enough to catch and kill a Moa!!! And it could fly!!! It would never have survived when european settlers arrived, as they would have flown off with whole sheep and cattle! Would have been days before they were wiped out!

Some of Pat's ideas seem reasonable... but why leave the roo alone? I don't get it. It doesn't need to be left alone.

Do not agree AT ALL with the is the 'bugs in salami' comment... Fermentation or not... NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING could survive in the high nitrite conditions that salami's and the like are 'cured' in. They are NOT just fermented - fermentation is the process where a biological additive such as yeast is used to break down sugars to produce alcohol. By that very method there indicates a lack of bacteria... If there was bacteria (such as staphloccocus) then you get vinegar! I'm not going into the biology here, but cured meat and fermentation is very different. That is what 'scaremongering' is all about. Either incorrect information or propergander!


----------



## Pat99rick (Oct 29, 2006)

*Kangaroo salami*

Hi SLiM6, sorry I cant agree with all of your comments below. Apart from my stints at farming, Ive been a butcher most of my life, and made lots of salami and similar small goods. Its essential that only the very best and freshest meat is used. Any old crap like ground up kanga scraps is nowherre near good enough. At least 3 children that i am aware of have died in SA from salmonella contracted from eating salami, and there have been several outbreaks that were not fatal. 
I know of the huge NZ eagle, it must have been a magestic bird. And the early settlers would have killed them all, just like the Tassie tiger here, and the kangaroo is going down the same road. Its all very sad!

"Do not agree AT ALL with the is the 'bugs in salami' comment... Fermentation or not... NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING could survive in the high nitrite conditions that salami's and the like are 'cured' in. They are NOT just fermented - fermentation is the process where a biological additive such as yeast is used to break down sugars to produce alcohol. By that very method there indicates a lack of bacteria... If there was bacteria (such as staphloccocus) then you get vinegar! I'm not going into the biology here, but cured meat and fermentation is very different. That is what 'scaremongering' is all about. Either incorrect information or propergander!"

Pat OBrien


----------



## slim6y (Nov 6, 2006)

In the advent of perfect timing... In this morning's Cairns Past (typed out WORD FOR WORD) is:

LIBS WANT CROC CULL

CROCODILES are back on the hit list of Queensland's Liberals with a motion demanding crocodile culling be reintroduced being passed in as policy at the Queensland Liberals annual state convention at the weekend. Senator Ian Macdonald, who raised the motion, was unable to be contacted for further comment yesterday. Crocodile shooting was banned in 1974.

Ok... Editorial end... How is this possible? Why? Who has the reasons? Who here is Ina Macdonald and why does he have it in for the crocs? Why cull? Are there numbers so out of control? Do they control themselves (as they're territoria).

Yesterday I was at the Cairns Tropical Zoo... Admitidely the croc is not endangered, but that doesn't give the right to cull them. Liberal's GROW THE F&*$ UP! The zoo admited openly crocs are not endangered, but are also not a problem. With 38 deaths associated to crocs over the past 200 years would indicate crocs are nto a huge threat to humans. This is less deaths than that attributed to vending machines falling on humans... You don't shake vending machines so why go in to the water where crocs inhabit?

Further more from:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20640207-29277,00.html?from=public_rss

EDITORIAL FROM THAT WEBSITE:
"I'm not saying that we should go out in the ocean and shoot all the crocs but I'm sorry Mr Crocodile if you're near our land you'll cop one between the eyes," he (Bob Katter, federal member for the vast northern seat of Kennedy) told the Townsville Bulletin newspaper.

Editorial end:

OUR LAND??? What a F&*KER!!!! Get over it.. Grow up... It's not our land... it's where we co-inhabit... so if people are little bit put out because they can't swim in their swimming hole... SO WHAT? I can't believe Australian government can still think like this!


----------



## slim6y (Nov 6, 2006)

And to back up the vending machine story: according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission there were 37 known vending machine fatalities between 1978 and 1995, for an average of 2.18 deaths per year. (http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/a/005445.htm)

38 Crocodile deaths (earlier in this response I had written 36, I think it has been amended to 38 since an 8 year old girl was killed in NT earlier this year and I have accounted for one more but I don't know why!) in 200 years... Let's do the math together aye.... 38 deaths / 200 years = 0.19 deaths per year. This is 1.99 deaths per year LESS than that of crocodile attacks in this country. 

I vote we cull vending machines! CULL THE VENDING MACHINES... Let's take up arms and pitch forks and burn the vending machines.. if we do so, there's a chance there's money and tastey snacks in it for you!


----------



## Mayo (Nov 6, 2006)

Slim if your going to use american vending machine stats then you will need to use american croc stats which are far different that our own. Not in support about the croc cull don't know anything about it. But just an observation


----------



## slim6y (Nov 6, 2006)

Thanks Mayo... But finding Aussie vending machine stats is about as easy as finding a three legged chicken to make the KFC franchise a third richer. So I used yank stats (sorry) but I guess the figure is clear... I just can't believe these liberal's that's all!


----------



## Mayo (Nov 6, 2006)

A more realistic figure would be to compare it to the number of shark fatality's, or bees's or something in Aust. Understand your point though.


----------



## slim6y (Nov 6, 2006)

Yeah, it's the point that's important... Nothingt to actually do with REALISTIC stats. The idea is.. Crocs don't kill... people just happen to walk into their open mouths. I gotta go... but this thread is far from over...


----------



## IceTime (Mar 17, 2007)

Old thread I know...but seriously culls are a stupid, outdated solutions usually touted by right wing fools whose parents sprouted the same crap about their crops being eaten... their grazing land being ruined...their swimming holes being ruined their bloody fruit trees being runined...even if you want to sprout the oh but its humane argument...thats not natural..if a population gets out of control the animals starve, some maybe many die but not all. People only ever want to cull animals when it suits them...its the same attitude as the only good snake is a dead snake.... like oh theres too many roos...they are getting hit by cars oh and eating all the grass...translation I hit a roo IT ruined my car...they should be killed...or I have a farm...my land isnt very prosperous...oh its the roos fault for eating the grass....not my thousands of head of cattle...no it couldnt be them....or my favourite...oh I can't take my little ferals to the local watering hole anymore... kill the crocs... or a dingo ate my baby...and to think these kind of attitudes are evident on a site dedicated to animals... no wait...those kinda people are probably on here to make a profit...


----------



## IsK67 (Mar 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> "We do not change the way we live to suit our environment we change our environment to suit the way we live!"



Isn't that the definition of a virus?



Agent Smith said:


> I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.



IsK


----------



## slim6y (Mar 17, 2007)

Wow... i thought this thread was dead.... but you've just bought up a wonderful quote from one of the most famous movies this century... Nice work IsK!

Hate to say it, but it's very true!


----------



## IsK67 (Mar 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Wow... i thought this thread was dead



Do I admit that I read the damn thing before realising it was an old thread?



slim6y said:


> .... but you've just bought up a wonderful quote from one of the most famous movies this century... Nice work IsK!
> 
> Hate to say it, but it's very true!



Yeah it's a good quote. But it was from last century.

IsK


----------



## Mayo (Mar 17, 2007)

Quote from Slim6y
"Yeah, it's the point that's important... Nothingt to actually do with REALISTIC stats. The idea is.. Crocs don't kill... people just happen to walk into their open mouths. I gotta go... but this thread is far from over..."

You were right slim six month's later it came back to life.


Ice Time have you been paying attention it's not that simple. Try pulling your head out of the sand.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 17, 2007)

IsK67 said:


> Do I admit that I read the damn thing before realising it was an old thread?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, ok, seeing as we're talking semantics... hehe... 1999 but that was only 8 years ago, so that's this century 

Well, I never really found out tho... should we cull the crocs or should we let them rule the land they once owned?

Crocs have been quieter this year, stingers have been rampant tho! A friend of mine works on the Green Island excursion boats and she said there's been something like 9 stings this season and 2 within the last week... Shouldn't we try culling them instead???


----------



## gaara (Mar 17, 2007)

slim, come into the chat, you rambunctious upstart


----------



## IsK67 (Mar 17, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Well, ok, seeing as we're talking semantics... hehe... 1999 but that was only 8 years ago, so that's this century


::Shakes Head:: OH NO. And you're teaching our younguns???


IsK


----------



## Retic (Mar 18, 2007)

I am against the massive cull we have but it wont stop as long as money is involved. The thing that does really annoy me is that we kill literally millions of these animals and mince them up for dog food and then we push them as a great Aussie 'icon', just look at the F1 today in Melbourne where they have blokes in silly looking roo suits jumping around the track. It's as always the hypocricy that annoys me.


----------



## IceTime (Mar 18, 2007)

Its a pretty black and white issue...my head is well out of the sand... You can only support culling from two standpoints...convenience or supposed environmental management grounds. Convenience involves all those disgraceful enough to kill these animals for profit, thousands upon thousands of head at a time with no consideration to limitations apart from the dollar. This approach has worked so well in the past just like the plenty of fish in the sea line of thinking.
Also included in this is the uneducated approach of kill kill kill you can't have crocs etc near people, roos/crow/anything that moves near farms blah blah blah which normally goes back again to the dollar as people are really only scared that the tourists wont go to their shop or that their crops or stock will get eaten and reduce their yearly wage...boo hoo

Oh and then there is also the other irrational fear and programmed response crowd who have usually been raised or surrounded themselves with the kinda people that have no idea about the animals in questions but have been told repeatedly that they are dangerous or a pest and thus should be killed.

A classic example of this is the idiot down south shooting seals because his grand dad (a fisherman) always said they were a pest that ate "their" fish....

And so far as environmental management....thats a misguided notion in itself, man are again to blame for these problems, capping populations is hardly a noble solution, we are the ones usually responsible for population booms in the first place (Roos on that military base a few years back for example)...furthermore more frequent accidents have more to do with a people population booms not animals ie there are far and away less sharks than there should be but we still see attacks as there are more and more people in the water. Same goes for crocs...one croc swims south and suddenly there is a problem... 

So far as rangers etc supporting culls...not all rangers/rspca workers know the first thing about animals...they quite often fit into the category above...for example fraser island rangers shooting dingos because a kid was attacked... sorry for the kid but thats the families fault...further more its people encroaching on wildlife...shooting the dogs that come near people is hardly a sensible strategy... its up there with farmers stringing the dingos up on trees to ward of further dogs....pretty dumb once you think about it...sure shooting the dogs will reduce the population and thus percentage of likely attacks...but to do that you might as well kill all the dogs/crocs/sharks/snakes/crop eating roos/killer tomatoes and just dont stop in the name protecting people because as I'm assure everyone would agree we're a threatened species...just look at the real stats on deaths...animals related deaths are way down the list...you're more likely to die from food poisoning than an animal killing you...

All pretty simple to me...


----------



## cris (Mar 18, 2007)

Icetime, do you have any facts to back this up? or do you just think they should be killed on a cute and furry basis? Actually reading your post you havnt even given a reason why it shouldnt be done.


----------



## IceTime (Mar 18, 2007)

cris said:


> Icetime, do you have any facts to back this up? or do you just think they should be killed on a cute and furry basis? Actually reading your post you havnt even given a reason why it shouldnt be done.



Reasons why it shouldn't be done should be obvious... they're wildlife...why kill animals for no reason? Its umm kinda wrong...its ruining the world..wildlife have to deal with enough encroachment and damage by man without senseless and misguided mass slaughters...we have made enough species extict already don't you think? And most of the time for a quick buck... which is what most of the culling is done for... for example the mass hunting of roos...we dont need roo meat...and its not even farmed, certainly not signigicantly...go about it the right and humane way... and don't bring up the roo head shots either....been there seen that... shooters miss all the time...and as reported some see no problem stomping joeys to save bullets....mate im from QLD and know plenty of fellas like that...

What other facts do you need? The shark attacks on people? Thats been widely reported...(Both mass fishing destroying shark numbers and that many more people are in the water) I dont think I need to quote numbers its only an internet forum afterall... Umm take a look at the world coastal population...or Australia qld and northern australia is booming... and I'm not sure where you are from (i didnt bother checking) but any beach between here and the topend is busier now than ever before which is only natural... or take a look at retail figures selling boats beach gear etc etc....all going up...

So you have a clash of people meeting wildlife and wanting it killed for profit and convenience or as I said because they dont know any better...

What else? The dingo cull? Thats happening...dont need to quote stats but its a pretty dumb idea...as i said killing the dopg will curb the attacks but it certainly doesnt stop other dogs from getting hungry and doing the same thing... eventually you'll end up with an unsustainable population that will just disappear...same as roos same as sharks same as crocs... 

Why not? Just because there is no law why not? There should be laws... and so far as haven't given any reasons as to why not cull...well I think I have made the point that only sick greedy creeps cull our native animals for profit or uneducated and misguided idiots for sustainabilty. So far as the cute and cudly goes....couldn't really call crocs and sharks cuddley... nor wild roos...

Futher to the point and its of course only my opinion... we share this place, I know my lifestyle is contributing to the destruction of the wildlife on this planet but it doesn't mean we need to add to the strain with senseless kills and uneducated attitudes... so what a croc is at my swimming beach...so what...it belongs there... I surf with sharks all the time... its a risk... if you don't want to take it don't but don't kill all the sharks and crocs just because they interfere with a couple of human past times... same goes for dingos snakes and anything else that bites... How can you be a pet owner or hobbyist and look animals with such disregard? I bought a snake as with my other pets because they are amazing creatures not as some sort of cheap trophy to show off to my mates thats just sad...


----------



## IceTime (Mar 18, 2007)

For numbers sake, just take a look at what will really kill you...animals dont even make the list...

Causes of death in developing countries Number of deaths Causes of death in developed countries Number of deaths 
HIV-AIDS 2,678,000 Ischaemic heart disease 3,512,000 
Lower respiratory infections 2,643,000 Stroke 3,346,000 
Ischaemic heart disease 2,484,000 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 1,829,000 
Diarrhea 1,793,000 Lower respiratory infections 1,180,000 
Cerebrovascular disease 1,381,000 Lung cancer 938,000 
Childhood diseases 1,217,000 Car accident 669,000 
Malaria 1,103,000 Stomach cancer 657,000 
Tuberculosis 1,021,000 High blood pressure 635,000 
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 748,000 Tuberculosis 571,000 
Measles 674,000 Suicide 499,000 

Probably easier to post a link but eh....oh and I think shark deaths worldwide were about 58 shark attack deaths... and as I said...look at stomach compaints...1,793,000...think twice about that next kebab... want to cull something... dodgy shop owners point your anger that way people not a defensless animals... for what its worth and for honesty... the above stats are wiki stats but if they're wrong well let me know...oh and wiki also states there have only been about a dozen world wide deaths since 1990...so yeah obviously they are in plauge proportions and must be stopped at all cost...jeezus theres one behind me right now...arghghghghghghghg I take nothing baaaaacccckkkk!!!


----------



## IceTime (Mar 18, 2007)

and I'll admit I can't type...that should be croc deaths...a dozen of them...since 1990...moving along...nothing to see here


----------



## cris (Mar 18, 2007)

I dont really think the reason roos are culled is the number of ppl they kill, i dont even know if any deaths have been recorded. Although they can be dangerous on the roads and would drop your guts pretty quick in a fight, so maybe the do cull them out of fear :? :lol:


----------



## Elfir (Mar 18, 2007)

i worked cattle stations for the last 7 years on several different places and ive had a bit of experience with the trouble roos, dingoes and other pests cause. The roos breed up rapidly in good conditions and once it dries up they cannot survive on the native grasses, so once it gets dry there is the same number on the same area starving they are also prone to getting worms at these times. Reds tend to move on a bit but the greys and wallaroos stay and get poorer and poorer as do the stock which is not a nice way to see any animal. Ive seen good rain fall over approx 2000 acres and the grass gets a good shoot, it was the only rain in the district and within a week the whole area was swarming with reds that moved in, they destoyed the whole area. People need food, if it is not grown in these areas where pests need to be controlled i would like to know where they propose we get it from. While i worked on stations i saw first hand the damage caused by animals such as roos and dingoes(which are not native to Australia anyway) and in my belief they need strict controlling to keep the land sustainable.


----------



## christo (Mar 18, 2007)

The most sensible solution would be to get rid of the cattle, let the numbers of roos increase (as they easily do) and then eat them instead. The outcome is less damage to the land, higher quality, low fat meat for us and a secure future for the roos. Roos are also free-range. Much more humane to shoot 'em where they stand than to round them up, transport them in crowded trucks, then line them up and kill 'em one by one like we do with cattle and sheep. I think it's time we re-evaluate our meat industries - far too damaging to far too much of the land with minimal profit and employment. Eating roos is the future if we want this country of ours to stay as beautiful as it is.


----------



## Paliadon (Mar 18, 2007)

Culling is humane. It doesn't matter which way you look at it. Too many and there is not enough food. Not enough food leads to starvation and disease.

Culling is a much more humane way to deal with a serious issue.

To anyone who rejects culling straight up I ask you a question... Have you ever seen first hand what happens to roos when they get over populated?


----------



## slim6y (Mar 18, 2007)

christo said:


> The most sensible solution would be to get rid of the cattle, let the numbers of roos increase (as they easily do) and then eat them instead. The outcome is less damage to the land, higher quality, low fat meat for us and a secure future for the roos. Roos are also free-range. Much more humane to shoot 'em where they stand than to round them up, transport them in crowded trucks, then line them up and kill 'em one by one like we do with cattle and sheep. I think it's time we re-evaluate our meat industries - far too damaging to far too much of the land with minimal profit and employment. Eating roos is the future if we want this country of ours to stay as beautiful as it is.



If this was the case people would be actively farming roos now! If you removed all cattle (then also sheep, goats, and other livestock) you'll have to import them at several times the cost.

That nice steak dinner you had may cost over $50 per kg!!! Instead of the $15 per kg we pay now.

Most people complain about the price of petrol when it goes up 2 cents per litre. Imagine what they'll say when beef products (including milk, cheese, chocolate... yes chocolate...) goes up 3 x at least!!!

I am on the side of 'not culling' but I also live happily knowing that the milk I drink comes from cows, the beef I eat is grown here in Aussie and I don't have to BBQ a snippet of joey!

But conservation farming is definitely the way to go. I am not sure that a move as radical as removing livestock is required when done correctly.

Secondly... those people who call roo's a 'pest' ought to think again... Pesky maybe, but you can't really be a pest in your native country to introduced crops, that doesn't make sense. By my reckoning that puts roos as a pain but not a pest. Same as bats.. they're a pain... but they feed on introduced crops where their food used to grow!


----------



## slim6y (Mar 18, 2007)

Paliadon said:


> Culling is humane. It doesn't matter which way you look at it. Too many and there is not enough food. Not enough food leads to starvation and disease.
> 
> Culling is a much more humane way to deal with a serious issue.
> 
> To anyone who rejects culling straight up I ask you a question... Have you ever seen first hand what happens to roos when they get over populated?



I think many people are aware, whether blindly or first hand, of the devastation roos face when over populating. But as pointed out in many cases throughout this thread, the reason they over populate is because of US! So we shouldn't be culling, but protecting is what many people are trying to say.

Yes, culling is humane in comparrison to starving, but it's the reason they became starving in the first place that's the problem!!!


----------



## cris (Mar 18, 2007)

christo said:


> The most sensible solution would be to get rid of the cattle, let the numbers of roos increase (as they easily do) and then eat them instead. The outcome is less damage to the land, higher quality, low fat meat for us and a secure future for the roos. Roos are also free-range. Much more humane to shoot 'em where they stand than to round them up, transport them in crowded trucks, then line them up and kill 'em one by one like we do with cattle and sheep. I think it's time we re-evaluate our meat industries - far too damaging to far too much of the land with minimal profit and employment. Eating roos is the future if we want this country of ours to stay as beautiful as it is.



I dont think complete replacement is realistic or needed but apart from that its a great idea.


----------



## cris (Mar 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I think many people are aware, whether blindly or first hand, of the devastation roos face when over populating. But as pointed out in many cases throughout this thread, the reason they over populate is because of US! So we shouldn't be culling, but protecting is what many people are trying to say.
> 
> Yes, culling is humane in comparrison to starving, but it's the reason they became starving in the first place that's the problem!!!



So we shouldnt have any farms? are you serious?


----------



## Elfir (Mar 18, 2007)

in the areas i have worked there never were any roos until the land had been "improved" for grazing, one old bloke on one of the stations i worked was 96 yrs old and he didn't see a roo until he was nearly 20, they just were not in the area although there were wallabies on those places. In my opinon the roos never existed in many areas until the areas were made habitable to them so they are they are not native to the area so therefore can be labeled pests. The professional roo quota in Queensland has never been filled. Farmers culling on damage mitigation permits only account for a small percentage of all roos killed each year. Roo meat will never replace beef/sheep as a major source of meat as it is not economically viable, to farm or shoot in large enough numbers and it would never be accepted overseas as a replacment.


----------



## xycom (Mar 18, 2007)

I think Christo hit the nail on the head. Current faming practices aren't sustanable!
Ask any Ecologist and i think they will agree. Get rid of the cows and sheep and eat the things that need to be eaten. Culling animals is only a short term solution.

we buy roo meat for $12Kg not $50. What does a Kg of T-bone cost? 

Per


----------



## slim6y (Mar 18, 2007)

cris said:


> So we shouldnt have any farms? are you serious?



WHAT?!?! When did I say "we should not have any farms"?

I think what I said was written in reply to someone else who said we shouldn't have any farms... 

*christo *said "The most sensible solution would be to get rid of the cattle, let the numbers of roos increase (as they easily do) and then eat them instead."

I was pointing out the fact that there is conservation practises that can help the continuation of roos, as well as using them as a food source etc... Never did I, nor would I, say that farming should be stopped!

But thanks for pointing that out 

hehe... I'm used to you reading more cris... must be a late night for you


----------



## cris (Mar 18, 2007)

slim6y said:


> WHAT?!?! When did I say "we should not have any farms"?





slim6y said:


> Yes, culling is humane in comparrison to starving, but it's the reason they became starving in the first place that's the problem!!!



I thought you were suggesting here that we should stop what causes overpopulation rather than cull, that means no farming. I have been know to misinterpret things occasionally


----------



## slim6y (Mar 18, 2007)

cris said:


> I thought you were suggesting here that we should stop what causes overpopulation rather than cull, that means no farming. I have been know to misinterpret things occasionally



Awe cris, don't be so hard on yourself... It's way more than occasionally 

Only kidding mate.. I wasn't worried about that - I guess when I re-read what i wrote it sounds like we should stop farming and all become tofu loving mung beans... But really i was suggesting we have environmental practices in place to utilise our natural resources and our exotic crops/livestock.... This will in turn, hopefully, remove the requirement for culling... But it takes some education and farmers to turn their way of thinking around. It has been mentioned in here before (this thread)... But right now I'm too tired to look for it...


----------



## Mayo (Mar 18, 2007)

Quote :Ice Time
"but seriously culls are a stupid"

So we shouldn't cull Cane toads, wild pigs, wild goats, Camels etc killing these thing's is still culling. We cull to keep things in check. Yes many of these problems were caused by man but generations ago, and they didn't know any better at the time. Now we have to fix these problems, and to maintain some sort of balance that means a cull. It's the uneducated bleeding hearts that yell and scream that have no idea. Yes I would like to see Roo on the menu more often but as I understand it, it can't legaly or easily be farmed. Using stat's that have nothing to do with the arguement is not going to help your arguement either.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 18, 2007)

Mayo... pick one species there where you say "So we shouldn't cull...." and tell us which ones were native to Australia?

My original thoughts and reason to put this thread up is because there were calls to cull crocodile in FNQ... Because they were inhabitting the beaches (ironically they have for centuries, maybe even millions of years....). And kangaroos - which I note have been increasing in mubers in some areas, but severely decreasing in others. Some kangaroo species may even be borderline extinct - the worst part of this comment is I don't actually know where I heard that from, but it was a reputable source... Can be disregarded if you don't agree 

I still don't agree in culling for the reasons we are specifying - By that very means we should be culling humans!

Culls may not be stupid, but they're the cheap and uneducated option to relieving the pressure of growing colonies of roo!

And even thinking now cheap may not be true... There's probably plastic fencing that is cheaper!!!

Does anyone in this country use 'unscalable' fences - I think i have asked this already... But surely there vould be paddocks of cattle etc that could be fenced off with unscalable fences. If we can keep deer in, I'm sure we can keep roo out???


----------



## Mayo (Mar 18, 2007)

Slim, Ice Time made the comment that cull's and the people that do cull are stupid and uneducated, no none of those that I listed are native but do you disagree that those listed need to be culled completely from this country. In your first post you bought up Aussie Possums introduced to NZ. It is a lot easier to keep deer in, than keep a roo out, hense the problems the CSIRO had when they were doing there studies. Untill a better solution comes along I see no other practical way to keep things in check.


----------



## cement (Mar 18, 2007)

Why don't we get rid of all the sugar cane. Acres and acres of land under something that isn't even food.........


----------



## Mayo (Mar 18, 2007)

But it may soon be used as a renewable fuel for cars which makes more sense than petrolium based fuels


----------



## rodentrancher (Mar 19, 2007)

Haven't read the whole thread, but who has decided what is the best thing to do??? Cheers Cheryl


----------



## slim6y (Mar 19, 2007)

Yes Mayo, I agree, all of those animals you listed require controlling, as do possums in NZ (amongst many other creatures). All are pests.

However, I still find it difficult to believe that roos are so difficult to keep out!!! What makes them so tough to keep out? 

I am asking this question in igronance - Can roo jump higher than deer?

If they could clear deer fences - then how, may I ask, do they keep them in captivity in zoos?


----------



## cris (Mar 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> However, I still find it difficult to believe that roos are so difficult to keep out!!! What makes them so tough to keep out?



They can jump most fences, and also go through them if they need to. Some fences are able to stop them while they are in perfect condition but they will find a damaged area pretty quick. It would cost millions if not close to billions to have roo proof fences around every farm and the roos would be much worse off for it.

IMO restrciting kangaroo movement would be highly detremental to them and could actually lead to them being wiped out or atleast threatened in some areas. Kangaroos need to be able to move around to get food and water.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 19, 2007)

cris said:


> They can jump most fences, and also go through them if they need to. Some fences are able to stop them while they are in perfect condition but they will find a damaged area pretty quick. It would cost millions if not close to billions to have roo proof fences around every farm and the roos would be much worse off for it.
> 
> IMO restrciting kangaroo movement would be highly detremental to them and could actually lead to them being wiped out or atleast threatened in some areas. Kangaroos need to be able to move around to get food and water.



Once again, I must point out that roos are kept in capitivity in zoos.

Secondly, if they were kept out of paddocks, that also means they can be kept in paddocks and farmed... not to the detriment of roo populations!

I have a bit more to say on this matter - but I gotta do some real work


----------



## slim6y (Mar 19, 2007)

to show I am unbiased I am posting a PM I got from Mayo... 

"An average deer fence is 2.1m , and a Roo can jump that from a standing start. Roo fences need to be greater than 2.5m high, and 2.3m wide, and still many larger Roo's can jump them. Deer fencing per 5 acres $34,000, Roo fencing for 5 acres $104,000. Got the costing from a fencing centre, and the height's I no from building them. Would have posted it but work has a block that stop's us posting in thread columns."

So my question then is - how do we keep them so succesfully in zoos? That's a huge cost!

Added - Just heard from two South Africans that game fences may be over 3 metres high... They have elephant cabling! I bet it's expensive, but still should work.

Vermin fencing also works... With electric wires that stops them getting too close to the fence to jump. So I don't think it is impossible!


----------



## IceTime (Mar 19, 2007)

Just to clarify... no I'm not referring to the cull of introduced species. Cull them all you like... Roos etc aren't introduced... so you have me there on that technicality.... Culling native animals is the problem. So far as native to the area goes...if farmers created the problem then tough really... they should find other deterrents or don't farm the area...unrealistic I know but someone has to fix the mistakes of the past. Considering many farms are owned by large corporations making huge profits... or generationally passed down then they should either have the money or ethical incentive to fix the problem. Just on a side note people lay waste to much more profitable land than a few native animals. Salination, erosion, live stock and wasting of water resources with irresponsible uncapped bores and flood irrigation have placed more farms against the wall... try working on that.


----------



## IceTime (Mar 19, 2007)

Just to clarify... no I'm not referring to the cull of introduced species. Cull them all you like... Roos etc aren't introduced... so you have me there on that technicality.... Culling native animals is the problem. So far as native to the area goes...if farmers created the problem then tough really... they should find other deterrents or don't farm the area...unrealistic I know but someone has to fix the mistakes of the past. Considering many farms are owned by large corporations making huge profits... or generationally passed down then they should either have the money or ethical incentive to fix the problem. Just on a side note people lay waste to much more profitable land than a few native animals. Salination, erosion, live stock and wasting of water resources with irresponsible uncapped bores and flood irrigation have placed more farms against the wall... try working on that.


----------



## Snake Catcher Victoria (Mar 19, 2007)

We arn't the only country to see the "need" to cull native animals.
In the uk they are talking about culling their badgers, read that here http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=40564&newsdate=28-Feb-2007

In Africa they cull elephants and elephant seals.
Monkeys in Singapore..to name a few


----------



## cris (Mar 19, 2007)

Icetime i would suggest you read the thread especially Sdaji's post at the bttom of page 4 it sums up why its done fairly well.

i was goin to type a longer responce but i have said it all before at the start of the thread, it now seems this thread is going in circles.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 19, 2007)

ssssnakeman said:


> We arn't the only country to see the "need" to cull native animals.
> In the uk they are talking about culling their badgers, read that here http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=40564&newsdate=28-Feb-2007
> 
> In Africa they cull elephants and elephant seals.
> Monkeys in Singapore..to name a few



wow... very interesting! I would like to think that culling wasn't required... But - I don't want to go off topic and discuss TB etc.

What i would like to say is we live in a country blessed with some natural resources, not overly blessed with water but - some of the most diverse species of mammals and birds.

I admit I wouldn't want to see roos starving, and even some hardline conservationists/ecologists agreed that it was appalling to see the state of some roos that over populated an area.

But - even tho there maybe a requirement to kill roos, there are also answers around it... And I like what Sdaji has said, it's very relevant... but what i don't like hearing is "there's no other way!" Because that's just plain not true!

There are other ways.. some ridiculous, some not useful and others that could just do the trick!

One of my main questions was should we cull crocodiles because of their large numbers and their ability to colonise beaches where humans may swim...? Ok.. so 38 - 40 people have been killed by crocs in the last 200 odd years. That's not good  

So I can't go swimming when there's a croc at the beach... but marine stingers are way worse here!

How much livestock is lost to crocs? Should farmers be able to kill crocs?

Unlike roos, are crocs starving? They do get diseases i know... but are there just too many of them? 

I have loads to say, but as cris suggested this is an old thread that is going around in circles.. it has been rather openly discussed and considered that we share many different opinions amongst this group. 

But perhaps it's time to let this thread be culled


----------



## instarnett (Mar 19, 2007)

> Im sorry but most people who live in suburbia do love roos and all the furry little creatures that the bush has but in the real world they can be a pest and have to be contolled to some degree



Dogs are good for that eh Oddie?


----------



## IceTime (Mar 19, 2007)

Well that was fun...lets put it this way... I just attempted to post a detailed response verging on an essay...then my PC crashed... i'm not going to spend all that time repsonding again so I'll keep it short. Cris in respose I read through the post you suggested and can't really agree with much of what was said. The post points out that well all have an impact on the environment sure and we do but our current methods can be changed and money can be spent in better areas and on other things before culling. It is far from absurb (maybe a little idealisitic considering the attitude of some greedy people) to expect business to change its practices and certainly to even make up for mistakes of the past. Especially considering some of the farming giants huge profits and the other fact that many farms are passed down gererations. I would think this should give them the financial power and ethical motivation to change and improve from the past. This would benefit business and the environment. As I have maintained the culling of roos has nothing to do with protection of the environment and all to do with protecting money and hunting wildlife for money. Saying they are culled for their own health is a cop out, aimed at placating the anti-cull crowd. I'd rather nature take its action as sad as it may be.

Current kill quotas are placed at around the 7 million mark out of a population estimated at around 40 million. I acknowledge that these have not yet been met but whats stopping them? Only popularity of the product. The actual population number of kangaroos is also up for debate. Many of the figures come from the industry that has a vested gain from the kill, particularly the well touted comment that there are more roos now since white settlement. If the kangaroo meat and fur industry have its way these quotas can be easily met. Even if Roo farms are set up, if wild cull limits remain this high then whats stopping the new found industry from swallowing up the wild population, particularly if there is no real stigma attached to the game meat as opposed to the farmed product. What are people willing to accept? Is it okay to have Roos on the endangered or threatened species list... in line with many other australian species? Or how about even extinct from the wild...soon to be a tacky zoo pet or delicacy farmed in limited numbers to gain a top price for the taste of australia? Don't think it will happen? Tigers? anyone? Sure 40 Million today...what about in another 200 years? Doesnt matter right we wont be alive.

Anyway I could keep going endlessly and not only would I be repeating myself but also going in circles as others have mentioned....this has already turned into another essay, though only about half as long as my last and doesnt address Culling apart from Roos... or half of my other points...so I'll leave it at that anyone...you're right Slim6y cull this post quick!  What have I done to kick it off again


----------



## Mayo (Mar 20, 2007)

Other things can be done over the long term, but in the short term something needs to be done. Many farms are under drought conditions and although the farms have been passed down through the generations they don't have much money. How about you foot the bill for these changes.

Quote Ice Time
As I have maintained the culling of roos has nothing to do with protection of the environment and all to do with protecting money and hunting wildlife for money. Saying they are culled for their own health is a cop out, aimed at placating the anti-cull crowd. I'd rather nature take its action as sad as it may be.

Yes I'm sure that money is a factor, but the environmental impact of not doing cull's is far worse. They are eating other wildlife out of existance. And as for letting nature take it's course, humans are meat eaters there for nature dictates that we eat the Roo's. Do you eat meat? What is the difference between eating a roast lamb, than a roast Roo? If you think Roo's are going to go extinct in this day and age from 40 million + your joking. There is no legal farming of roo in australia, but if there was a change in law I think more than a few people would be looking into it.

Unless a practical solution can be found things will continue the way they are. Touting that it is a national icon, it's all about money , and deny that they are in plague praportions does nothing to help the matter. Untill people take in all the facts and put forward a practical, and economic solution culls will continue. To do it right will take many years, if you don't like what has to be done go stick your head back in the sand and pretend it's not happening.


----------



## Elfir (Mar 21, 2007)

the estimations of roo populations used to be done by driving down the highway counting the road kill and then multiplying by a set figure. The estimations on how many roo are in this country are a mile under the real figure.


----------



## christo (Mar 21, 2007)

> Originally posted by slim6y:
> If this was the case people would be actively farming roos now!



They are. Macro Meats in SA are making great money by harvesting kangaroos. Unlike most conventional farmers, the drought hasn't affected their productivity or prices at all.



> That nice steak dinner you had may cost over $50 per kg!!! Instead of the $15 per kg we pay now.



I don't eat beef. But roo meat currently sells for between $6.00 to $12.00 a kilo in Melbourne. And if we harvested more of it, it would get even cheaper.



> Most people complain about the price of petrol when it goes up 2 cents per litre. Imagine what they'll say when beef products (including milk, cheese, chocolate... yes chocolate...) goes up 3 x at least!!!



I was referring more to beef cattle than dairy, but I wasn't really clear on that I guess. Dairy farming doesn't take up any where near as much land as beef cattle.



> Orignally posted by Cris:
> I dont think complete replacement is realistic or needed but apart from that its a great idea.



Neither do I. I guess I should have said "get rid of most of the cattle". I don't believe, for example, that we should be growing beef for the export market - it is just too unprofitable in the long term when you weigh up the environmental costs.



> Originally posted by Slim6y:
> I think what I said was written in reply to someone else who said we shouldn't have any farms...



I don't think I said that. Where did I mention a complete eradication of farming?


----------



## Mayo (Mar 21, 2007)

Elfir- Roo counts are done by independent auditors, and from a chopper these days.

Christo- I can't see where Macro Meats say's that they are farming Roo's ( From my understanding that is illegal) They refer to the product as "Gourmet Game" which to me sounds like wild kill. Would like to see there product up here though as I love a good skippy steak. And I think the "complete eradication of farming" was aimed at Ice Time.


----------



## christo (Mar 21, 2007)

Mayo said:


> Elfir- Roo counts are done by independent auditors, and from a chopper these days.
> 
> Christo- I can't see where Macro Meats say's that they are farming Roo's ( From my understanding that is illegal) They refer to the product as "Gourmet Game" which to me sounds like wild kill. Would like to see there product up here though as I love a good skippy steak. And I think the "complete eradication of farming" was aimed at Ice Time.



True, macro meats uses wild killed roos. I guess "harvesting" is a better word. 

Sorry, I thought the last line was aimed at me - my mistake.


----------



## slim6y (Mar 21, 2007)

Thanks mayo for sticking up for me... And it's ok to confuse what i said, I speak about as clearly as a feral pig on heat sometimes.. so my typing may not be any better... on the other hand you should just read properly the way i was thinking it 

I have been talking to farmers in Tassy who use roo fencing etc... The successfully keep the roos, possums, wallabies etc out and has never seen or heard of a dead roo in one of these fences. He believes they get hammered frequently by the electric fence but are unable to clear the fence. 

So by that reckoning, surely there must be the option to farm roo!!! And profitably.

I don't see the difference in land use, methane emissions etc that cows for milking do compared to a beef cattle... Both are not overly environmentally sound! 

But without knowing exact comparrisons or without seeing it in black and white I am unable to make comments. But I do agree that ferral animals should be the first to go before we start looking at livestock replacements. Or maybe we should all come tree hugging tofu eating mung beans? 

I still don't agree on the need to kill roos if fencing options are available!!! And that's all there is to it.. I don't care about the cost (try saying that when I pay $50 for a kg of beef I know) but our closest civilised country... Not Norfolk Island, NZ, can export beef and lamb to Aussie for about 1/4 the price you get it over here! 

You will find that NZ beef is expensive in NZ, but cheap overseas... which, ironically, is why beef is actually not to expensive here, because the quality isn't meant to be as good... But... I haven't noticed the difference! 

There is no reason why our two countries couldn't co-operate to have a more ecologically sustainable future - and why roos and humans can't just 'get along' without the need for culling... 

Hard words for some to hear.. and words deserving of a flame... but hey... hehe... That's cause it's pride that's stinging you... haha... Eat NZ lamb and Beef (you probably already do!)


----------

