It is so shameful that the USA is so morally bankrupt. This bill is all about money and not about the immoral cruelty these poor kangaroos suffer. There is no need for this, there are already too many animals being murdered in slaughterhouses , how many more billions must suffer and die. There exist so many attractive non-leather items. Greed, money and cruelty again rule...

Posted by: Ana | May 24, 2007 03:31 PM

It is so shameful that the USA is so morally bankrupt. This bill is all about money and not about the immoral cruelty these poor kangaroos suffer. There is no need for this, there are already too many animals being murdered in slaughterhouses , how many more billions must suffer and die. There exist so many attractive non-leather items. Greed, money and cruelty again rule...

Posted by: Ana | May 24, 2007 03:31 PM

Ana,
To allay your fears Kangaroos are not killed merely for their skins. In Australia there are an overpopulation of roos and some need to be culled for the good of the rest. There is only so much food available for them.
The skins are a by-product and the meat is used for human consumption as well as pet food. To allow such resources to simply rot would be immoral.

Posted by: rojo | May 25, 2007 08:42 AM

Rojo, have you watched the video of how these animals are killed? http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=stop_sb_880

That's what's immoral.

Posted by: Jack | May 25, 2007 08:45 AM

Rojo, first of all, kangaroo populations are the lowest they have been in over a decade. Many species are on the verge of extinction. But even if there were "too many" of them, blowing holes in them with high powered rifles and turning them into soccer cleats is not the answer. There are more than 6 billion people on the planet. 1.2 billion of them go to bed hungry every night. Do you propose we shoot them too so as not to let a valuable resource go to waste?

Posted by: Allen | May 25, 2007 09:23 AM

you made an EXCELLENT point there , allen! =)

Posted by: nadia | May 25, 2007 11:32 AM

Rojo, you did not allay my fears. You present a specious argument to say the least. The world is seriously overpopulated, about 6.3 billion and growing, what do you propose should be done with those starving?? Cull them??? Cull is an idiotic word substituting the words, murder or kill.
The answer should never be, well, let's kill them there are too many. We have many children in the USA that go to bed hungry, do you think they should be culled for the good of the other children who don't??
Here's a novelty: how about a humane solution for the kangaroos.

Posted by: Ana | May 25, 2007 04:43 PM

Rojo,

Unfortuantely, my posts haven't been put up on the Beckham post but can I just say that you are absolutely wrong. The meat and skin industry is huge in Australia the government make millions of dollars from the revenue from these culls, if you believe this is just about there being too many roos then you are naive.

Also most of the Australian public live in the suburbs and know nothing about the so called culling of these animals, if they did there may actually be an outcry. Please don't bunch all Australians in
to that catagory when you implied that we want this to happen in your other post.

Maybe you are a farmer as they do seem to have the attitude that anything that comes on to their land should be shot. I have seen farmers shoot roos when there were about 10 roos on their property.

I could go on but this probably won't get on this blog again.

Posted by: Sonia | May 25, 2007 11:48 PM

"how about a humane solution for the kangaroos"

I'm listening. What are they and will animal groups be paying?.

Sure the world is overpopulated, but species generally don't kill their own until resources are scarce. So far there is food available for all.

I understand there are some culling of humans in Brazilian slums and the US has drive-bys. I guess you're cheering?

The word culling correctly differentiates the killing from "murder". Murder is used for it's emotional connotations. Incorrectly in this case, but thank goodness for free speech.

Posted by: rojo | May 26, 2007 02:03 AM

Rojo: I did not specifically state the humane solutions in my post...not enough space nor the proper venue.
"Food available for all..."
You are in serious need of an education but I cannot waste anymore time with someone who can say this; your comment is laughable as is your logic.
I don't cheer killing of any creature but your flippant attitude is just plain stupid.
The joeys find it emotional to lose their mothers but you sound morally bankrupt so you wouldn't understand. I guess integrity is too $$$ expensive for you. I think the best thing is to totally dismiss your irrational comments and just continue to fight for justice for all creatures and yes, that even includes humans.

Posted by: Ana | May 27, 2007 04:03 PM

Sonia, You are incorrect, kangaroos are available for harvest because of sheer numbers and the consequent desire to control population has resulted in a multi million dollar industry.
If you prefer them to starve, then that is duly noted. It's an terrible way to go when a shot to the head is pain free. And the body is not able to be used.

Incidently I am a farmer who choses not to kill roos on my farm. I have about 20 roos that feed on my lawn every night and are perfectly healthy. I don't even get upset when they eat my wheat.

Allen, yes I would expect current population to be lower than a decade ago because of excellent conditions then and poor conditions now. The fact still remains that there are 2-3 times more of them now than 100 years ago.

Posted by: rojo | May 29, 2007 11:19 AM

Rojo, good for you leaving the roos alone but you are in the minority unfortunately and as a farmer you would know this.

Do you honestly think that the government and the other people that profit from this multi-million dollar industry is going to give up this lucrative business if the population is in decline, again you are naive if you do.

Can you tell us where you get your facts that there are more roos than there were 100 years ago. If it is the government authorities, well what a joke.
I have actually had a conversation with the local authority about how they know the numbers of kangaroos in my area, they spouted on about doing aerial surveillance and I laughed as this place is full of bush, how can they see them. In the end he confessed that they guess and listen to the people that want licences to shoot them. People around here think 10 roos is a plague, I'm quoting what has been said here, not just spouting propaganda.

There may be more roos in certain areas because they are being pushed from other areas, as I have said in other posts on this subject, but this is no reason to shoot them. You can see by the video that all the roos that were shot were definitely not starving this is just the excuse that people like yourself use to make you sound like you care. I'm yet to see a thin starving roo hanging from one of those shooters trucks, why aren't they shooting the ones that are suffering instead of the healthy ones in that case?????

Posted by: Sonia | May 30, 2007 12:00 AM

Sonia, it merely shows culling is working, no starving roos.
you don't think meatworks will want boney ones do you?

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/roobg-t1.html

Don't let the gov bit put you off, the study was by a university, just published on a gov website. Scroll down to find comments on Eastern grey and red roo's. The whole study is quite interesting.

And here on our very own ABC, not usually regarded as govt supporters.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/skippysizeme/

Posted by: rojo | May 31, 2007 11:18 AM

I must say, i'm on Rojo's side on this issue.I live in australia, and we have far too many kangaroos.They cause terrible accidents on country roads, as well.Culling them,whilst it sounds horrible, is nescessary.

Posted by: ella | May 31, 2007 09:22 PM

Rojo,

'Sonia, it merely shows culling is working, no starving roos.
you don't think meatworks will want boney ones do you?'

Exactly, this isn't culling this is killing for a profit. According to your previous posts there are so many kangaroos they are starving so this is why they are being culled. You have just contradicted this, by saying there aren't any starving roos but the cull still goes on. Isn't this what I have been saying???

I'm sorry I would not class any report funded by the government or anyone that profits from these culls as impartial.

The ABC will use any story as long as they are getting ratings, ie the climate change one that was on this week that had already been proven to be wrong in the UK, even the scientists on the show said they had be taken out of context. This article also goes on about farming kangaroos, what a joke, if you know anything about kangaroos in confined areas then you would know that this would result in yet more cruelty but I suppose who cares it's a meat source.

You would have to have an awful lot of kangaroos to replace sheep and cattle as there isn't much meat on them so we would end up with more intensively farmed animals and kangaroos don't do well in this sort of environment, they also can't be herded like livestock. To get the amount of meat you would need to replace the other sources for the same amount of land being used you would have to have thousands of roos and this would also wreck the land, what is the difference.

I could go on forever about this, we know your point of view and you know mine so I'm going to let people decide for themselves, but at least now they know some things about these so called culls 'because the roos are starving and the Australian public want it'
Yeah right!!!!!

Posted by: Sonia | May 31, 2007 11:50 PM

I see the report you are quoting is from 1999, are you saying that loss of habitat and the drought hasn't effected these animals in any way in the last 7 years?? I also notice that this says "likely change since white settlement" this as I see it is just a theory, not proof.

Only eleven years ago the government gave licences out to shoot the White tailed black cockatoo and now they are on the endangered list. Now they are shooting at every white parrot in WA because they have decided to get rid of the long billed corella because it isn't native here. The problem is they are also killing, the western long bill and the little corellas that are native, but who can tell the difference when they are in the air. All this is because some people in Perth are complaining about the noise and the poo on their cars. This is the standard of wildlife protection over here in Australia.

Posted by: Me | June 1, 2007 12:25 AM

ella, with your logic all children going to schools should be culled as they run in to the road sometimes, also there are the hoons that race their cars on the streets who cause accidents, basically most teenagers that have just got their licences, old people, drunks etc etc all potentially cause accidents on the road . What a selfish stupid thing to say.

Posted by: Sonia | June 4, 2007 10:26 PM