It is shocking to hear that so many kangaroos are killed every year in Australia. Thank you Peta for helping these helpless beautiful creatures and many thanks also to the lovely Beckhams for supporting kangaroos! Thank you!

Posted by: Garden of Eden | May 16, 2007 04:03 PM

Boycott like Beckham--awesome! I can't wait for Becks to get to LA and start kicking butt for the Galaxy. And I love him even more now that I know he and Posh are animal friendly. Hells yeah

Posted by: Joe Corrigan | May 16, 2007 04:17 PM

I heard about the Predator skin thing but I never thought Beckham would be in favour of the kangaroos. How wrong I was, it is so cool when celebrities take direct action for animals. Great couple.

Posted by: Maureen | May 16, 2007 05:50 PM

I heard about the Predator skin thing but I never thought Beckham would be in favour of the kangaroos. How wrong I was, it is so cool when celebrities take direct action for animals. Great couple.

Posted by: Maureen | May 16, 2007 05:50 PM

As an Aussie gal I think killing kangaroos and also the babies is barbaric!

They're native to Australia, so they're should'nt be "too many". And if there is problems with other species then do it humanly without killing or hurting any animal or person in anyway.

Posted by: Australian | May 16, 2007 08:43 PM

There is a couple true and fair,
Gifted in sport and art!
The two a common passion share;
In protecting creatures they have part!

I sing a lovesong just for them;
They are dwelling in my heart!
He - a hero; she - a gem!
For this they are so sweet and smart!

Posted by: The Minstrel | May 17, 2007 07:35 AM

Kangaroos are not an endangered species and their numbers are far in excess of pre-european settlement.
Roos are culled because there are too many for sustainable limits. At least by selling the skins and meat the resource is not wasted.

Posted by: rojo | May 18, 2007 10:57 AM

rojo, you obviously don't understand the premis of being an advocate. culling animals for their skin is not healthy or ethical. We don't do that to people so why would we do that to animals. Some people still hold onto the idea of discrimination at all costs. It is quite far fetched to believe that kangaroos should be exploited and sold for their fur because their populations are increasing. You sound just as ignorant as the people who believe that raising animals for their fur is a way to promote the survival of their species. People want to eat meat..I get it!! but people also want to destroy every single natural resource on the planet. Nope, I don't agree with your argument. I side with the environmentalists, because they actually give a damm about the world!!

Posted by: Stacy Pfeifer | May 18, 2007 01:00 PM

there are people existing in this world - they do not understand that an animal protector's concern is not just caring about 'endangered species' but an animal protector's concern is AVOIDING PAIN FOR EVERY ANIMAL - even if it's a snail or a fly - this is the attitude of an animal protector! but you can repeat it hundred millions of times they don't get it! so if they have no antenna for this they should let us in peace and not always try to disturb this website!

Posted by: animalfriend | May 18, 2007 02:30 PM

You guys don't get it. The roos are culled because there are too many. They will run out of food and starve. The Australian people would prefer that some are culled and the resource used rather than allowing them all to suffer starvation. I'd suggest that was pain.

They are not culled for the skins and meat, they are culled because they need to be. The skins and meat mean they don't die for nothing.

I apologise for disturbing your website but if you peddle untruths you need to expect it.

Posted by: rojo | May 18, 2007 09:01 PM

There are plenty of other options. But No' you must Know everything, because the idea of hunting kangaroos is "The right choice." You must be one of those "know it all types." I don't like "know it all types" especially when in all actuality they're very ignorant. The Australlian people want an excuse to kill them, and obviously so do you. In Canada their government does the same thing to seals because they claim that the seals are eating all the fish so that the fisherman have an excuse in having over fished the oceans. Let me ask you something "There are too many people in the world, that are using up far too many resources but we don't kill and use them for their skin and meat." So, an environmentalists approach might be to restore the natural habitat by introducing predators and having wildlife sanctions. But your approach is to let people hunt and kill them. Think about what your saying? Your argument has flaws and is not based on any premis other than animals are less than humans, which may be your personal belief, but their is no factual evidence!!

Posted by: Stacy Pfeifer | May 19, 2007 04:24 PM

rojo, you dont belong here. your just as sick and twisted as the bastards who are killing innocent kangaroos. so please screw off.

Posted by: Brittany | May 19, 2007 05:46 PM

stacy, where do I profess to know everything? Yes it is certainly easier to attack me than to contradict what I say.

What are the other options?

There are sufficient roo numbers to support harvesting and during the current drought we're doing them a favour by culling.
Incidently I haven't shot a roo for years. Do hit a few in the car now and again though.

How do you have a natural habitat where you "introduce" predators? Aren't hunters predators? Either way some roos end up dead, and I know I'd prefer a shot to the head than being mauled to death.

As to cannabalism, its happened in the past and, if resource depletion leads us there, will happen in the future.

Stacy, I believe all life is precious and should not be extinguished without purpose. Food is a purpose and skins a by-product of that purpose. The very fact that roo numbers need to be controlled is a purpose in itself.

Posted by: rojo | May 21, 2007 09:01 AM

Rojo, I have just written this for the other post but after reading your post I thought I would add it here.

The government in Australia makes billions of dollars from the kangaroo industry, they set huge quotas for the shooters and at the moment according to the shooters there just aren't enough roos to shoot now, yet the government still doesn't reduce the quotas. The quotas don't include the damage mitigation licences they give out or of course take in to account the illegal shooters or the roadkill, fence hangers and drought. Australia is as bad as Canada with their seals but it isn't advertised so they get away with it.

Rojo, are you living in Australia because I am and I know what is going on over here. I see morons shooting illegally all the time because they just love to shoot things, when reported they get off with it because the government departments are piss weak and really don't care. How can these departments be impartial when they make revenue from handing out licences and they also are supposed to be protecting wildlife. Ironically, this is the case, if you want a licence you have to ring the 'Wildlife Protection department" what a joke.

You are also forgetting the cruelty involved with this industry. When they shoot the females potentially there are 3 roos killed for one skin. The joey at foot and the joey in the pouch, did you even look at the video. Usually the bigger joeys at foot are left to starve to death, they feed from their mums until they are 18months old, I know this as I rehab them and I know what will survive or not. Maybe you should see through the propaganda yourself and find out what is really happening over here. The roos are being pushed in to small pockets of land and they killed because there are supposedly too many of them.

Posted by: sonia | May 22, 2007 12:16 AM

Sorry I didn't get to finished before.

Rojo,

You also write about kangaroos starving, well this is one of the excuses that farmers use to kill them and also in semi-rural areas. What a load of crap. Until humans moved in and removed the natural bush there would have been a lot more roos with an all year round food supply because the bush is drought tolerant. Now there is just zillions of acres of crops or cows etc so the roos are stuck with eating what is there. This all cuts in to the farmers profits although if you research the roos eat different grasses) and that is why they shoot them. I live in an area where people grow oranges (not their only income) and they shoot the roos because they supposedly eat the trees, these trees aren't protected in any way from the roos or the rabbits. Kangaroos will only nibble the new leaves on the very small trees but so will rabbits so who is to blame. As I say these so called precious crops aren't protected in any way. Also the kangaroo has survived for a long time being able to control their own populations by using diapause, which basically means they stop the joey developing until the drought is over. This is just one of the tool they have that helps them through a drought or lack of food. You should get more educated, check out this site as well rather than listening to the one sided propaganda that the government tells you. http://www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/index.html

At least then you have both sides of the story, maybe if you are so interested you can buy the book that even has politicians and shooters quoted as saying it is cruel and not sustainable.

Posted by: Sonia | May 22, 2007 02:16 AM

Sadly it seems my arguments are too truthful and are being edited. Enjoy your insular world.

Posted by: rojo | May 23, 2007 08:53 AM

Yes Rojo and so are mine which totally counteract your claims. I'm an Australian person and totally disagree with your claim that Australian people want the cull of these animals. Most people live in the suburbs and no nothing about these so called culls. The only people that want them are people that gain financially from it.

Posted by: Sonia | May 23, 2007 11:04 PM

Stacy,
" an environmentalists approach might be to restore the natural habitat by introducing predators"

Only a dumb one. How is it natural habitat if predators are introduced?

Australia only has the Dingo, a wild dog, not noted for big game hunting.

Posted by: rojo | May 25, 2007 08:32 AM

That is the difference between humans and animals. If there are too many 'roos,' there will be less food, and some will die, yes, but they will also stop reproducing. That is how nature works. Humans, on the other hand, reproduce at all costs, even if there is not enough food/supplies. That is a part of the reason whey people are starving, because we can not control our population control. Animals have it in their genes to be able to control it, thats how they survive!

Posted by: Jake | May 25, 2007 02:28 PM

I applaud the people who ensure that acts of convenience aren't masqueraded as "necessary culls" Hard evidence is required. But I empathize with those who have to make the infrequent and ugly choice where control is necessary and benefical. In those cases all one can do is demand it be done compassionately and if you really care, ensure that future imbalances are avoided. In cases such as cowbirds, rats, pigs and cats it is unfortunate that the predated or starving wildlife gets lost somewhere. For animal lovers it is a real catch-22.

Posted by: Amy | May 25, 2007 04:51 PM

HAHAHA.
I guess we should all pick up our machine guns and start culling humans now, too,
since they're much more overpopulated thank roos,
and they're the ones who are really ruining the environment.

Posted by: alex. | May 25, 2007 05:15 PM

I am so sick...
In this day and age, when you can make things from fabrics of corn, grains and hemp, why on earth would you want to kill for shoes or clothing? I can't believe this.

Posted by: elaine | May 25, 2007 05:47 PM

Rojo,
I understand that you believe in the comments you're making which is absolutely your right to do. But I ask what gives you, or any other person or group of people, the right to decide who gets 'culled'? Or to decide the fate of any other species for that matter? The benefit of being part of the 'dominant' species on this planet is that you have the power to set a positive example rather than a negative example for the future. I would be very interested in hearing your answer because based on your comments so far, it seem like you need to evaluate why you consider yourself an advocate for animals. It's my opinion that your comments/actions don't coincide with your apparent beliefs. So, believe what you want, but don't be a hypocrite.

Posted by: Cerah Christensen | May 25, 2007 07:06 PM

bonjour j ai vu le reportage sur ce couple et leur enfant qui tue ses kangourous avec une telle sauvagerie y a de quoi etre choquer ....j espere qu ils vont etre punis

Posted by: gambino jessica | May 25, 2007 07:33 PM

It is so sad to see human beings enjoying causing and seeing these animals suffer so. It is not right at all. Even the dogs and cats that are beaten for at least 1 full hour before they are actually killed for their fur and meat in China,Asia, Phillipines and the rest of those sick countries that think buy torturing a dog it will make a man perform better sexually. Or boiling a cat alive for "cat juice" which in China is supposed to help certain arthitis. Watch some of those videos from PETA. No animal should suffer a long, torturous death. We are our own enemy. Man! The hunter! I will do everything I can to help spread the word on what California Law wants to pass and pray it does not!

Posted by: Debbie DeMeyers | May 25, 2007 10:13 PM

I don't think I'm hypocritical, I value life but accept animals are part of the human food chain. What makes a kangaroo more valueable than a sheep or less valueable than a dolphin? Only personal perception.

I accept peta wants NO animal "exploitation", of which I am not an advocate, but want them to campaign truthfully. Kangaroos are not endangered and they are not killed solely for their skins. As it happens Kangaroos are culled and it would be a shame for the meat and leather to go to waste.

Kangaroo's can regulate their reproduction but it is a reaction to low feed availability, not necessarily population. By this stage the mothers and every other roo in that region are going hungry.

Posted by: rojo | May 26, 2007 01:35 AM

rojo: I would like to see how
brave you would be if someone
came after you and decided that human meat is tasty--dis-
gusting right--it's the same
when these innocent victims
are killed for meat and their
skins--what is wrong with you.
GO VEGGIE--DON'T WEAR ANY
ANIMAL SKIN--SAVE THE LIVES
OF OUR ANIMAL FRIENDS--YOUR
KARMA WILL BE GREAT.

SALLY OMAR

Posted by: sally omar | May 26, 2007 02:02 AM

rojo: I would like to see how
brave you would be if someone
came after you and decided that human meat is tasty--dis-
gusting right--it's the same
when these innocent victims
are killed for meat and their
skins--what is wrong with you.
GO VEGGIE--DON'T WEAR ANY
ANIMAL SKIN--SAVE THE LIVES
OF OUR ANIMAL FRIENDS--YOUR
KARMA WILL BE GREAT.

SALLY OMAR

Posted by: sally omar | May 26, 2007 02:02 AM

Show Mercy and Mercy will be shown to you.Bible.
Indeed,a Great English/British Man,a Fighter Pilot,Commander who saved Britain,from Deafeat against the Luftwaffe,set up Animal welfare Charity,Animal Defeders International.www.ad-international.org.;Hugh Dowding,1st Baron Dowding.So what is noble,decent and English,we ask the americans,of british/english stock,the rullers of america,to follow thier ancestors and bretherens example and become humane and decent and caring,instead of the savagery and brutality on the innocent,defenseless animal bretherns and sisters and learn from the legacy from the greatest English/British Humane RAF ace,extraordianire.with bets wishes,ravi

Posted by: Ravi Pandya | May 26, 2007 02:45 AM

Maybe we should start culling the people in China, as they are so overpopulated.

If its fair to cull animals, then it is fair to cull humans when there are to many of them!!

Posted by: Athena | May 26, 2007 06:00 AM

THAT IS SICK AND CRUEL! I WANNA KILL THEM EVIL BASTARDS AND I HOPE THEY ROT IN HELL!!!!!!

Posted by: Sarah Spindler | May 26, 2007 07:18 AM

So many of us seem to forget - we are all animals. So we need to try our best to treat others as we wish to be treated. Kindness to all species.

Posted by: christine cifelli | May 26, 2007 12:24 PM

iam very happy they dont like to see animals getting killed because of there fur

Posted by: stephanie schackney | May 26, 2007 02:35 PM

Non-human animals are NOT a necessary part of the human food chain. If humans reverted back to the way it used to be and only ate a plant-based diet, the non-human animals would be able to live their lives as nature intended: without ruining their habitats, genetically modifying them to grow bigger faster, and without "culling".

When left to nature to deal with things, non-human animal populations fluctuate depending on the climate, disease and over-population - but then it would be able to regulate itself if humans were not so high and mighty and deciding that they are the ones who can judge when to intervene (for their own convenience and financial gain of course). We have f***ed up the balance of nature enough.

Also, if humans reverted to the plant-based diet, in addition to sparing animals from unnecessary cruelty and death, we would eliminate world hunger, we would be healthier, and we would be able to save the environment.

And Rojo, if you actually paid attention to the views of the people on this entire blog and not just this particular entry about kangaroos, you would know that nobody here is saying that kangaroos are more valuable than sheep or dolphins. They are commenting on kangaroos in particular because THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD!!!!

Posted by: Michele | May 26, 2007 03:13 PM

I too agree this is so horrible. But unfortunately we live in the age of power hungry man. If culling has to be done why cant it be done in the most painless ethical way for the animal? Not like the hunters shown in the video who seem to get joy out of crushing a poor babies head into the ground. As for RED NECK ROJO, you should get together for a good old shoot out with George Bush!

Posted by: Kiwigirl | May 26, 2007 06:22 PM

OK question?
If 'Posh' and 'Becks' are such animal lovers, how come they give the business of producing their fragrances to Coty? Coty tests it's product on animals according to PETA's caringconsumer.org
Sorry I'm not on the fan-wagon. If you care about animals - care all the way! Even with your wallets!

Posted by: Erin Tague | May 26, 2007 06:55 PM

Most of the kangaroo meat sold in Australia is actually used to make pet food or and their skins are used to make souvenirs.

It is other countries that may eat the meat, like Russia (probably our main export).

Rojo,

I do agree with you that sheep, cows are no different than kangaroos, but I don't eat any meat so this isn't an issue for me. The vast difference is that kangaroos are killed in the wild and a lot of the time the joeys are left to die a long slow death.

Also when you say about this so called head shot, well who is there to check, I have personally seen roos that have been shot in their legs still walking around, one roo had at least 8 bullets in him and was still trying to run away. Another with her jaw shot off but still in the paddock trying to eat, these are things I have seen, can you imagine what goes on when there is no-one around. Yes they can't sell the roos that they shoot in the wrong place but it is easy to leave them to rot where they drop isn't it, there is no-one to police it.

I have even heard of one professional shooter admit in court that his records weren't
kept properly (not a bright boy).

Of course, it isn't much better at the abattiors for the domestic animals either but as stated this blog is about kangaroos.

Posted by: Sonia | May 26, 2007 11:31 PM

THIS IS WRONG. TO HURT OR KILL KANGAROOS.

Posted by: KATHERINE BOMMARITO | May 27, 2007 02:40 AM

I would just like to know, has Rojo actually watched the above video clip?
One thing's for sure - faced with the possibility of having to forage out my own food facing the threat of starvation, or having some red neck come along, shoot me, stomp my baby to death then truss me up alive, I think i'd choose the starving to death option.

Posted by: katie Timmins | May 27, 2007 08:29 AM

I haven't seen the video, it wouldn't download for me. From what I've heard though this is NOT usual by any stretch of the imagination. over 85% of roo's are shot in the head, and 98% in the head/neck region. There is no more a humane way than this. The roo is killed in it's natural environment, quickly and cleanly not even aware. The quality of the meat and skin depends on accurate shots.
Sonia, those injured roo's are not the result of professional hunters, but the ratbags of society. Banning skin sales won't clear up that problem
The Joeys are not left to die, if they can out run a man they will survive if not they are given a crack on the head. Or taken home as a pet.
Katie, depends how you measure suffering. Starving is a slow uncomfortable process and you still end up dead. No value is derived from a bony corpse.

Posted by: rojo | May 28, 2007 05:28 AM

Rojo, If we start saying that it's okay to kill the kangaroos because we are using their meat and skin, it would be too hard to regulate who is killing to use the whole animal and who is killing for sport. More importantly, you missed the point, that it is not our decision to make. It is possible to make shoes without using animal skins and it's obviously possible to survive without eating meat. So there are no more excuses! You can't put rules in place only to break them when it's 'convenient'. Your comment about animals being part of the human food chain seemed ignorant to me. You assume that's how it should be because someone told you it was true? Or your parents taught you that when you were little? What is it? I come from a family of meat eaters and I grew up in a farming community, but I have been a Vegetarian for all but four years of the 33 years that I've been alive. If we take their meat, what about the other animals that need them to survive? Lastly, I personally don't hold the importance of a kangaroo higher than a dolphin, sheep or any other living creature. It's not just about protecting the 'cute' animals. It's about protecting all creatures big or small, cute or not. They are part of the eco-system and were here long before us. You have to show some respect for that.

Posted by: Cerah | May 28, 2007 03:30 PM

Ogni vegetariano salva la vita a 450 animali.
Jeder Vegetarier rettet das Leben von 450 Tiere.
A Vegetarier save the life to 450 animals.
Non dimenticarlo!!
Nicht vergessen!!
No forgott!!
maurizio - Italy

Posted by: maurizio marangoni | May 28, 2007 05:34 PM

While meat may not be a necessity some of us enjoy it. Human brains may not have evolved to our current level without the energy and nutrients provided by animal protein and fat. So to say we should "return" to vegetarian diets is incorrect. Man has always been omnivorous.

Posted by: rojo | May 29, 2007 10:44 AM

Katie, I have just finished watching the video and it isn't how you portray it. The hunter isn't one of our finest examples but he is a good shot. I understand your repulsion that animals are killed at all, but if they are dead before they hit the ground I see no harm. It may surprise you but animals kick and flail when killed, it does not mean they're alive.
Didn't the little boy looking after the joey warm your heart?

Posted by: rojo | May 29, 2007 10:59 AM

je suis dégoutée de voir la cruauté des hommes envers les animaux!!A quand des lois pour punir serieusement et severement la barbarie de ces montres!!

Posted by: celine | May 29, 2007 02:22 PM

I cannot believe this. What the F*%K is wrong with people?

Posted by: Kelle | May 29, 2007 03:20 PM

why dont we start using human remains, say for instance in dog food because if one is dead why not make use of it"it would be a shame to let it go to waste".I think mankind should let nature take its course its a load of bollocks and a poor excuse to say certain animals in the world need culling.

Posted by: kate | May 30, 2007 03:53 PM

celine, can't speak french but get the gist of exclamation marks.

kelle, if you mean me, i'm not the one resorting to profanity as rebuttal.

If you disagree provide some facts. The truth cuts both ways, I can take it if I'm wrong.

Posted by: rojo | May 31, 2007 09:33 AM

I still say

POSH+BECKS= hippocyrites.

You can't stand up for one animal and then exploit another for your own monitary gain.

The more voices the better. But I can't praise a pair of celebrities who want it both ways. I don't know how much their trademarked colonges go for, but any price where animals have to suffer and die for beauty and profit is too high a price to pay.

Until they change their perfumers from COTY to a cruelty-free brand, I say they stink.

Posted by: Erin Tague | June 1, 2007 01:37 AM

what the hell is up with this rojo peroson!! like are you F%!king kidding me!! it's amazing how people can be so cruel....

Posted by: jessica | June 2, 2007 10:21 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the Beckhams joined up with Jennifer Lopez in some business venture?. Jennifer Lopez wears fur and uses it in her clothing line.

Posted by: Marilyn Glasgow | June 5, 2007 01:50 PM

jessica, what is cruel about a fast clean kill?
Is profanity a requirement for peta supporters?

Posted by: rojo | June 15, 2007 10:26 AM

I hate it when people quote me to try and make a point. Soooooo, condescending, dontcha think? Anyways, I do the best I can, really, I do. I look at the facts and come to different conclusions; one option may be more viable than another( People terminated the Tasmanian tiger to extinction). Anyways, my point is that some people hate animals, some people hate other people and some people hate themselves. But, they don't have to. There are other options.

I used to eat meat and not care about others well-being. But, then I realized that, that is a cop-out.

I don't support peta. I support people who give a S*&t... oops there's that profanity again. I'll say whatever I want and just like I cant stop you, from doing so, you cant stop me. What are you the censorship fairy? A$$H@l*!!!!!!

And F%#k hypocrites!! It really burns me that peta feeds into all this celebrity CRAP. Actually though, it is a good marketing strategy. It seems like people revere celebrities as Gods, or some Bull$**t. I don't even know who half these people are.

Posted by: Stacy | June 16, 2007 08:54 PM

I hate it when people quote me to try and make a point. Soooooo, condescending, dontcha think? Anyways, I do the best I can, really, I do. I look at the facts and come to different conclusions; one option may be more viable than another( People terminated the Tasmanian tiger to extinction). Anyways, my point is that some people hate animals, some people hate other people and some people hate themselves. But, they don't have to. There are other options.

I used to eat meat and not care about others well-being. But, then I realized that, that is a cop-out.

I don't support peta. I support people who give a S*&t... oops there's that profanity again. I'll say whatever I want and just like I cant stop you, from doing so, you cant stop me. What are you the censorship fairy? A$$H@l*!!!!!!

And F%#k hypocrites!! It really burns me that peta feeds into all this celebrity CRAP. Actually though, it is a good marketing strategy. It seems like people revere celebrities as Gods, or some Bull$**t. I don't even know who half these people are.

Posted by: Stacy | June 16, 2007 08:55 PM

sorry, I'm joining in a little late.

I'll leave out most of my points because I'll just be repeating what one person or another said earlier.

I've just one thing to add.

ROJO, u keep saying that there's nothing cruel as it's a "fast clean kill". You conveniently left out the baby joey that was pulled out of the mothers pouched and later stomped on the head and left to die slowly.

You only spoke of the kid who was looking 'tenderly' at the baby roo, but you didn't mention that this kid was also the same one that further stomped on the earlier mentioned stomped roo, just for good measure.(conveniently, just as he was walking past)

Since you've watched the video, you should also have seen that the kangaroo was NOT dead and not killed fast and clean. He was basically shot somewhere near the head, NOT DEAD, and then left hanging upside down for his slow death.

I respect good arguments, and believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. BUt ur arguments, although cleanly phrased,are far from good. You make claims and conveniently leave out the obvious facts (which contradict ur claims).

I think most people here aren't that much offended by ur opinion. They're more offended by ur blatant ignoring of what's out before u in this evidence. You're being asked to look at ALL THE INFORMATION presented here, and re-evaluate ur case. U dont have to change ur opinion. but in ur reevaluation, it shouldn't contain things like, the roos are killed in a fast clean way, or other false claims.

thanks and cheers.

Posted by: addy | July 3, 2007 04:40 AM

Rojo, to ur question:

"Didn't the little boy looking after the joey warm your heart?"

No, not at all. Because I don't believe in double standards. One cannot 'look after' a kangaroo with good will and good intentions and at the same time, moments before, stomp on a dying baby kangaroos head just for the sake of it and just because he could.

That last part of the clip, if watched out of context, may look like a tender moment between a boy and a joey, but the sad truth is that it isn't. But you, wanting to see it as what you want it to be, viewed it as such.

It didn't warm my heart, I felt instead, very sad, because this boy is an accomplice to a painful death of a kangaroo, and this young joey is clinging onto him, unaware of what's in store for him. I look at his lost and scared expression and I feel sad.

I also feel sad because what was so clear can be distorted so ridiculously by people, for example, you.

Posted by: addy | July 3, 2007 05:08 AM

Interesting blog. The in-fighting is a bit shitty though. Humans are anything but humane and everytime you stop your natural tendency to be greedy and self-serving that is a mini-victory. But I promise you that finger-pointing just alienates people and gives them the excuse to remain selfish and indifferent. Regardless of if you agree with me or I agree with you I am glad to see so many people who care.

Posted by: Amy | July 5, 2007 03:12 PM

I usually do not post things over the internet because It's not the safest thing to put your ideas out there, where just anyone can read them. Once you write those ideas down they are set in stone. I would like to say that I should not have posted things on Peta at all but was feeling heated when I read through some of the blogs and posts. I apologize and will refrain from saying things over any of petas blogs again. If need be please delete my comments on all of petas blogs as they are just argumentative.
Thanks,
Stacy

Plus I used my real name not thinking of those repercussions.

Apologies!

Posted by: Stacy M. | July 15, 2007 09:50 PM

You people are idiots. The use of kangaroo products is far better than the environment than continuing farm cattle in Australia on the current scale. They do less damage to the natural environment, use less resources and produce less greenhouse gases.

Additionally, kangaroo meat is healthier.

OK, you don't want to eat meat, but don't protest against the use of kangaroo products as if the kangaroo industry is somehow worse. Would you prefer people eat more beef? That is the alternative.

Posted by: Sam | August 27, 2007 08:48 AM

Please David Beckham keep on with your determination not to wear football boots made from kangaroo skins. This cruel,monstrous industry needs to be banned. As a wildlife rehabilitator hand rearing orphaned joeys (many orphaned by these horrific culls) I can tell you that these are just the most beautiful, gentle and affectionate animals. The hard work of hand rearing is more than rewarded by the return in love we get back from them, and the tearful but fantastic feelings we have when we successfully release them back into the wild. A feeling always tainted by our never ending fear that our beautiful kangaroos, once released, will always be at risk of becoming victims to this barbaric, violent and disgusting industry. There needs to be much more public awareness of just what is happening here in Australia as I am sure that so many people world-wide simply have no idea.

Posted by: Cathy Carr | October 29, 2007 07:42 PM