Kangaroo industry's sham science hides ugly truth

[mac]

Then there's the issue of if a roo is shot in the body it has to be left there as it can't be processed. What kind of a law is that?

again its a law for HC roos & yes they stipulate one clean shot to the head (not so much the pet food industry this is still a condition but isnt always the case) (the carcas usually gos to the station owners dogs or to bait foxes & other feral animals, no professional shooter drops a shot that badly or gut shots a animal for fun

so what do you suggest? paradox incog & myself have provided valid points & opinions

take the pet food out of the numbers & lets see how sustainable the HC industry could be could be

ok the rest is all tongue firmly in cheek

is it ok to eat & farm emu ? but they are not as cute are they

should we should find a simple solution a one child policy or culling us pesky hungry humans ?

or just go with the Monsanto growth hormone & monster animals to feed the population ?

as i said i didnt mean to offend but it seems i have

"note to self eat more vegies"

Edited December 16, 2010 by mac

[tripsis]

I have no problems with farming kangaroos Mac, it's hunting which is unsustainable. So yes, farm emus. I think that we should be farming far more native animals and far fewer exotics. That go for pets too.

I suggest we stop hunting wild populations, which is something currently not sustainable and farm them instead in the most ethical way possible. If they must be culled due to "plagues" of them, then the meat can be utilised, but there needs to be a line between doing so to reduce numbers and doing so to create revenue. Seeing as the industry exists to create revenue, not to control numbers as they would like you to think, things have to change.

Actually, I'm all for controlling the number of humans. We are the greatest threat to this planet and the number of us is growing exponentially. Why would you not want to curb population growth?

[mac]

Why would you not want to curb population growth?

coz i have this stupid idea about freedom

i do agree on the farming of the animals but be realistic that whats happening already but they are free to roam until they are culled or humanely slaughtered for their meat

As i said the pet food side of the story is whats wrong with the industry & would be the majority of animals killed , yet is not mentioned in the story

[dworx]

Because they are protected animals and if that protection and the restrictions that go with that protection are lifted, people can rampantly kill as many roos as they wish for whatever reason they wish. Roos hunted commercially should be tagged, the tags given out in limited numbers by the government. If a roo turns up at an abattoir without a tag, theoretically it should not be processed. Thus why if you shoot a roo, you won't be able to sell it for its meat. Also thus why it is illegal for you to kill roos. Do you expect to be allowed to kill any other wildlife on your property?

You miss my point, the fact that they are protected is irrelevant, what I am asking is if I am permitted to cull a number of roos on my property, I am not allowed to butcher/consume them they have to lay where they drop. In my eyes if woollies can sell it then I can hunt it and eat it, but they want the $$$$'s that I won't be spending so it is illegal.? I think it is hypocrisy that tehy allow the meat to be sold for consumption but if I kill a roo I can't eat it?

[tripsis]

So human freedom is more important than the health of an entire planet and every organism that lives on it? Typical anthropocentric view (no offense intended).

i do agree on the farming of the animals but be realistic that whats happening already but they are free to roam until they are culled or humanely slaughtered for their meat

Perhaps you should try being realistic about it too. As the article points out, the roos are often not "humanely" slaughtered, but are shot in the wrong places, left to die slowly out of sight, or in the case of the young, have their heads bashed in. Is that your idea of humane?

As I keep saying and as you keep ignoring, the cruelty issue is just a part of the greater problem. Address the fact that we are unsustainably hunting wild populations of animals. Justify how this is reasonable, considering our track record for hunting animals to extinction. Give valid reasons for why we should continue to do this for the sake of people being able to eat some meat.

Also, give me some proof that the pet side of the industry is the problem. Otherwise, it's your word against a scientific study. I know who I'd believe.

Edited December 16, 2010 by tripsis

[tripsis]

ou miss my point, the fact that they are protected is irrelevant, what I am asking is if I am permitted to cull a number of roos on my property, I am not allowed to butcher/consume them they have to lay where they drop. In my eyes if woollies can sell it then I can hunt it and eat it, but they want the $$$$'s that I won't be spending so it is illegal.? I think it is hypocrisy that tehy allow the meat to be sold for consumption but if I kill a roo I can't eat it?

I dont disagree with that. That's part of the problem too. There is so much money involved with the industry, that regardless of whether there are actually "plagues" of kangaroos, they'll be hunted by the millions anyway. The idea that they need to be culled in a very convenient cover for the mass slaughter of roos for profit.

[C_T]

gah, farming anything is a bad idea... health wise.

[lickapop]

So hands up who actually has been out with a "professional" licence holder and shot up a bunch of roos?

Mac? you sound like you have? sounds like they were very professional....which is a bit different from what I have seen

[tripsis]

Alright, to those who believe the article is bullshit, please read the following links, kindly provided by Culebra on AE.

http://stopkangarookilling.org/

http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/kangaroo-facts.html

Seeing as you may not wish to read all of both links, I've taken a few quotes out of one on them which I felt particularly pertinent.

The Federal Government is responsible for monitoring the industry in the commercial hunting states, and is bound by the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999, to ensure the protection of biodiversity and native species. Tragically however the Federal and state governments have failed to protect kangaroos, with government data exposing a commercial trade in leather and meat, combined with severe drought, decimating kangaroos to the edge of extinction across most New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

Red Kangaroos, Western and Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Wallaroos and Euros, have been hunted to critical levels of less than five kangaroos per square kilometer (5k/km2), densities defined by the Murray Darling Report as 'quasi extinction' and meaning:-

"The nominal value of kangaroo densities taken to indicate the effective loss of the species(1) ."

The Murray Darling Report is a scientific report published by the Murray Darling Commission and written by government and independent scientists. It makes clear warnings regarding the risks of hunting kangaroos below 5k/km2 ('quasi extinction'):-

"Strategies that produce average densities of less than 5 kangaroos per square kilometer would result in minimum densities of less than 2 kangaroos per square kilometer, and could be considered a threat to species conservation(2)."

As stated earlier, all commercially hunted kangaroos are now quasi extinct across most of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, and as predicted by the Murray Darling Report, kangaroo numbers have crashed even further to less than two per square kilometer across half of these states:-

"Critical minimum densities are not clearly defined but populations below 2 kangaroos per square kilometer would generally be considered at risk of extinction(3)."

These statistics also expose a significant breach of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by the Australian Government and the Kangaroo Industry Association Australia, whereby they have failed to protect kangaroos at the extent of their range and ensure that the impacts of the industry are ecologically sustainable. It has also failed in other aspects of the EPBC Act by inflicting significant cruelty on pouch joeys and ex pouch joeys in the manner in which they are dispatched (bashed/stomped to death, decapitated, and/or orphaned and left to die from starvation, predation, stress and exposure), therefore failing to 'protect the humane treatment of wildlife' and by not taking a 'precautionary principle when making decisions relating to the utilization of wildlife'(17).

Government and independent scientists such as the CSIRO, Prof. Gordon Grigg (Environment Australia), Steven McLeod (University of NSW, NSW Dept Primary Industries), Dr Tony Pople, Penny Olsen and Tim Low (School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT) Dr David Croft (Fowlers Gap Research Station School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of NSW) and Ingrid Witte (NSW Dept Environment and Climate Change, University of NSW) now agree that based on the evidence, kangaroos exert negligible impact on pastoral and agriculture production, hence undermining the justification for this large scale destruction of unique native animals.

Ms Nicole Payne, Manager of Kangaroo Management Program, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, admits in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that the commercial slaughter of kangaroos is;-

'Not designed to achieve population control or damage mitigation, but for commercial harvesting'

Ms Payne also agreed with Olsen and Low (2006) in their Literature Review ‘Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological Impact and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling’ that:-

'Damage mitigation as grounds for harvesting is unfounded'

'Kangaroos provide some benefits to biodiversity and, save for exceptional circumstances, are not competitors with sheep or cattle'

When calculating the country’s ability to support sheep and cattle in present day conditions, Croft equates the land’s ability to support the 2004 estimates of sheep and cattle at 22 million cattle and 105 million sheep, or 237 million Dry Sheep Equivalent. This is equivalent to the energy demands of 339 million to 1.185 billion kangaroos (at just 0.2 - 0.7 DSE). The kangaroo population has been estimated at just 20 million in recent years and therefore:-

'Amazingly we have been clever enough to create pasture for the equivalent 7-24 times the more generous estimate of the number of kangaroos currently in Australia yet this supposedly excessive number was unsustainable pre-1788'(36).

David Croft (UNSW, 2005) wrote in regard to kangaroos and tourism:

'Thus at times of good and frequent rainfall there will be a build up of the population just like the bounty of the ephemeral plants that they eat. We should marvel at this great wildlife spectacle and carry planeloads of tourists to the Outback just like those few occasions when the Lake Eyre basins fills with water and waterfowl. There is no greater sight than red backs bent into a sea of wildflowers with the young leaping and finding their full hopping stride as they cavort around their mothers. If it were the Adoni plain of Etosha National Park or the Auob River of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park of Southern Africa and the sprinbok calves were pronking, it would be a wildlife spectacle. In Australia it's just a plague of bloody kangaroos.' (38)

Professor Steve Garlick, (Sunshine Coast University, Qld) has spent the last nine years rescuing and rehabilitating kangaroos and had this to say about the importance of saving them:

"If you ever have the wonderful opportunity, while alone, of being close and spending quiet time with a wild animal you will find the soul uplifted to heights of awareness not ordinarily experienced. Beyond the simple biological and biophysical, you will discover skills, knowledge and behaviour we humans rarely recognise but can learn much from to help us in an increasingly tortuous world. Sharing some of your life with kangaroos is particularly rewarding. Kangaroos are gentle, affectionate and family-oriented creatures with relational characteristics that respond well to human kindness. There is much that can benefit the basic requirements of a decent human society by closely observing the kangaroo in its environment. You will find no dishonesty or deceit and, if you are in a relational ethic with them, they will let you know whether they are prepared to trust you. At a practical scale you will discover incredible navigation skills that humans are forced to copy, not learn, through the application of technology. In the end, being cruel to kangaroos and our other unique wildlife, or treating them as just an object to be counted and then discounted means we lose an opportunity to learn and gain an awareness of ourselves that may prove crucial for our own very existence." (39)

In light of current statistics and dire forecasts, it is clear that the kangaroo industry is unsustainable, with the industry now reduced to killing kangaroos barely of breeding age, at a rate faster than they can breed. If we were to refer only to the scientific information within this document, we could safely say that the kangaroo industry is in decline, taking our precious national symbol down with it and destroying one of our main assets and, most profitable industries, the Australian Tourism Industry.

Summary

Since 1980, 73 million kangaroos have been killed by the Kangaroo Industry and turned into pet food and sports shoes. Around 14 million pouch joeys have been bashed to death or decapitated and 7 million young at foot joeys have been orphaned, and left to die a slow and lonely death from stress, starvation, and exposure. This combined with years of intense drought, floods and bush fires, has seen Red Kangaroos, Western Grey Kangaroos, Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Wallaroos and Euros plummet to densities of less than 5k/km2 (quasi extinct) across most of Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. These species are now at risk of extinction in these states, and if the commercial industry is allowed to continue, scientific forecasts predict mass extinctions of Red, Western and Eastern Grey Kangaroos, Wallaroos and Euros, across most of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

We therefore make an urgent request that the Australian Government impose an immediate moratorium on the commercial and non-commercial slaughter of kangaroos across New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland for the sake of our country, for the sake of our environment, for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our reputation, and for the sake of our Icon.

Now, more than ever before, it’s time to stop killing kangaroos.

I'll just add that with every female killed, three young are actually killed along with them. The out-of-pouch dependent joey, the in-pouch joey and a fertilised embryo that is in a state of suspended animation, waiting for the in-pouch joey to leave the pouch.

[mac]

yeah lickapop I have worked on a few property's / farms & as a offsider for Professional shooters so i have witnessed that side of things as well as sheep beef cattle industry

also seen the river lakes raped for fish & yabbies by the so called pro fisherman far more than 3 million ? but they aint fluffy & cute

So human freedom is more important than the health of an entire planet and every organism that lives on it? Typical anthropocentric view (no offense intended)

no offence taken

i see it as we should be free to live bred & eat, just as animals should be free to live breed & eat(well until i want to eat them)

Take pet food out of the equation im sure it could become a sustainable industry & could even eventually reduce the numbers of cattle sheep farmed

Freerange roo meat

Edited December 16, 2010 by mac

[ThunderIdeal]

good thread. yet another area in which we humans need to lift our game.

IMHO, environmental and economic considerations aside, if we choose to eat our animal friends, and yes i am particularly talking about birds and mammals, we should strive to minimise cruelty. otherwise why should we treat each other any better? it's pretty well established that sadistic psychopaths start out torturing animals and move on to people. you expect people to take pride in their work and act professionally but there are stories about slaughterhouse workers acting sadistically.

thanks everyone for providing your point of view

Edited December 16, 2010 by ThunderIdeal

[dworx]

also seen the river lakes raped for fish & yabbies by the so called pro fisherman far more than 3 million ? but they aint fluffy & cute

 

The pro's not only rape the rivers but the oceans as well. I have seen them dump a whole load of fish at sea because they found a fresh school and would get better $$ for the school of Tuna still in the water - so dump the two day - week old catch to make roomk for the new one. Thing is it is the sports fisherman that get the bad wrap for killing the big fish???????????

[synchromesh]

Fuck roos, we should be farming Camels!!!!

 

Who's to say that we shouldn't farm and fuck both of the species?

IMHO, environmental and economic considerations aside, if we choose to eat our animal friends, and yes i am particularly talking about birds and mammals, we should strive to minimise cruelty. otherwise why should we treat each other any better? it's pretty well established that sadistic psychopaths start out torturing animals and move on to people. you expect people to take pride in their work and act professionally but there are stories about slaughterhouse workers acting sadistically.

 

An extremely important point.

"The measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members."

- Winston Churchill

[tripsis]

also seen the river lakes raped for fish & yabbies by the so called pro fisherman far more than 3 million ? but they aint fluffy & cute

Mac, you're implying that because fish ain't cute and furry they get no attention, but this is bullshit. I've already mentioned the parallels between the roo hunting and the overfishing of the oceans. There is a huge amount of research into overfishing and many, many people are vocally opposed to what is being done to feed our burgeoning population. Doesn't matter if they have scales, fur or feathers, the principles and results are the same.

i see it as we should be free to live bred & eat, just as animals should be free to live breed & eat(well until i want to eat them)

So surely the roos should be free too, from a species hell bent on total domination of the planet at any cost? We can do without roos, we are not dependent on them for survival, but they are threatened by us.

Take pet food out of the equation im sure it could become a sustainable industry & could even eventually reduce the numbers of cattle sheep farmed

Sorry, but that is not a fact, that is nothing more than an unbased opinion. Doesn't really compare to a scientific study. Anyway, if you cared to read those links, you would have read that regardless of whether people want the meat or not, roos are still hunted for fur and leather. Pet dogs have nothing to do with that.

IMHO, environmental and economic considerations aside, if we choose to eat our animal friends, and yes i am particularly talking about birds and mammals, we should strive to minimise cruelty. otherwise why should we treat each other any better? it's pretty well established that sadistic psychopaths start out torturing animals and move on to people. you expect people to take pride in their work and act professionally but there are stories about slaughterhouse workers acting sadistically.

This is a good point. Most abattoir workers and hunters no doubt take pleasure in their work, if not at the beginning, then if they stick around, very likely by the end of it. This sort of mentality cannot be healthy and could easily be seen as signs of them being psychopaths. I have seen footage of the abattoir workers going nuts on animals for the sheer pleasure of it.

Edited December 16, 2010 by tripsis

[mac]

I think we can all agree once things go " commercial " & " professional " is when you start to see problems

really its the ones who make the regulations & licencing laws that can do anything about it

i tend to question the motive of any one sided news story & am fairly cynical about motives & background info on those involved

[ThunderIdeal]

well i did not for a moment mean to imply that MOST of those guys are unprofessional and sadistic, but it does happen, and due to work place culture and so forth a professional worker probably wouldn't report them and if they did the company probably wouldn't do anything. that kind of thing probably takes a bit to weed out and stamp it right out of the workplace culture and get future incidents to be reported immediately and disciplined but that isn't gonna happen especially when the company only cares about $

[tripsis]

Alright, perhaps most is wrong, but many wouldn't be incorrect (it's pretty vague afterall).

[incognito]

my father and I had a license to hunt roos. i dunno if that makes us a professional. seeing as my dad didnt have the eyesight to shoot, that was my job. Not the nicest job you will ever get.

We used to feed our dogs on them, and I used to skin and tan there furs.Didnt think much of it as it was 'normal' at the time. I would never ever do it again, and if i won the lotto i would buy our old farm back, which ajoins the national park, and donate it to the national park, just to pay a lil karma off

[botanika]

unfortunately (& i mean no offense) vegans i find kind of hypocritical as in order to survive, or even to basically find enough food to meet your nutritional needs as a vegan you must live in a very rich & decadent society. my point being that you can only be so extremely picky about what you eat if you live in a grossly decadent society such as our own which has more food than it knows what to do with... but now i'm ranting aren't i...

 

Rich and decadent societies generally have rich and decadent diets. Vegans are more the product of a stylistic society IMO and are not exactly being 'extremely picky'. They simply focus their diet on vegetables rather than meat.

I know what you are implying though. Only vegans Ive personally ever met are from regions like australia, europe and america with high living standards. In china Ive never met anyone that doesn't like meat, never met anyone that doesn't like vegetables and never met anyone that doesn't like seafood. As Chris Rock once said 'Only americans are lactose intolerent, you aint never gonna meet someone from Rwanda who's lactose intolerent!'.

Get any Vegan to the brink of starvation and they would probably happily eat a roo steak ;)

Is it correct that Americans have totally boycotted most Kangaroo products (inc leather) because they think its cruel we hunt our national symbol? Not like they haven't hunted their nation symbols to near extinction...

Now we just gotta work out a way of getting cane toads and rabbits into Woolworths.

Edited December 22, 2010 by botanika

[tripsis]

I know what you are implying though. Only vegans Ive personally ever met are from regions like australia, europe and america with high living standards. In china Ive never met anyone that doesn't like meat, never met anyone that doesn't like vegetables and never met anyone that doesn't like seafood. As Chris Rock once said 'Only americans are lactose intolerent, you aint never gonna meet someone from Rwanda who's lactose intolerent!'.

I don't think it has to do with wealth directly, but rather education (which could be attributed to wealth indirectly) and culture. You will find vegans in India, those wealthy enough to post about it on the internet and thus wealthy enough to have been well-educated. I don't think it's the wealth though, so much as being able to look at things with a broader perspective as a result of being educated. I expect you would find the same in China if you looked too.

[ThunderIdeal]

I know what you are implying though. Only vegans Ive personally ever met are from regions like australia, europe and america with high living standards. In china Ive never met anyone that doesn't like meat, never met anyone that doesn't like vegetables and never met anyone that doesn't like seafood. As Chris Rock once said 'Only americans are lactose intolerent, you aint never gonna meet someone from Rwanda who's lactose intolerent!'.

 

not having a go at your post, but chris rock is a comedian. not denying that a starving person would be glad for free milk but america like australia has a very low percentage of lactose intolerance, but in africa it is much more common.

i partially agree with paradox, in the sense that western vegos can afford all kinds of supplements and superfoods and basically any type of food they feel would help maintain their health. on the other hand vegetarianism is in large part derived from indian culture, and many poor regions have near-vegetarian diets (not by choice i don't think, but they get by). overall, if australia were not a rich and decadent society, the amount of meat on the dinner table would be FAR, FAR LESS, which is personally what i'd like to see. a move from this 'meat all day every day' nonsense.

of course a person who doesn't eat meat WOULD if they were starving. i know people who don't eat fruit, or don't eat 90% of the vegetables out there, what's the difference? apart from the vegetarian probably having superior health to the meat and two-veg eater... we'd all eat our mother's face if it came down to it.

Edited December 22, 2010 by ThunderIdeal

[tripsis]

Of course if we were starving, we would eat anything we could get, but it's not really a question of that. If we were starving bcause we were poor, we would almost certainly not be able to afford meat anyway. You can live a healthy life as a vegetarian/vegan without supplements/superfoods, but of course it takes a bit of dedication and knowledge of what is and isn't healthy (thus once again, education). I'm not telling everyone in this thread to become a vegetarian. But I do agree with ThunderIdeal that we should, as a nation and as a species, consume less meat overall. The quantity we consume is not necessary and often actually leads to health problems. It doesn't have to be all or nothing in either direction; it's not difficult to have a reasonably well balanced diet.

apart from the vegetarian probably having superior health to the meat and two-veg eater... we'd all eat our mother's face if it came down to it.

[botanika]

I don't think it has to do with wealth directly, but rather education (which could be attributed to wealth indirectly) and culture. You will find vegans in India, those wealthy enough to post about it on the internet and thus wealthy enough to have been well-educated. I don't think it's the wealth though, so much as being able to look at things with a broader perspective as a result of being educated. I expect you would find the same in China if you looked too.

 

Yes education, I thought I had put that in my post with 'stylistic' but must have removed it when editting. Plenty of vegetarian restaurants in china. Man the things they can do with Tofu! Tofuroo. 'I can't believe its not roo'. Hmm sorry strange concepts flooding my warped mind again. Most vegans and vegitarians I know developed the choice during university where they are exposed to such lifestyles and education like cord pants, dreadlocks, Sonic Youth, co-op organic stores, lentils...all that neil hippy stuff ;) Id bet there are not too many gluten free dudes on Foxtel's board of executives.

Back to the topic, how many of us actually eat roo on a consistent basis? I don't mind it but it doesn't trump the other meats. I tried emu steak and thought that was quite good.

Edited December 23, 2010 by botanika

[tripsis]

Tofuroo. 'I can't believe its not roo'.

I used to eat roo regularly, as I think I mentioned somewhere above, but of course, do not anymore.