21 May 2012

What's that Skip? KABOOM!

| johnboy
Join the conversation
70
kangaroo corpses

Territory and Municipal Services are giving notice that they’re about to start culling kangaroos in the Canberra Nature Park:

The ACT Government wishes to advise that areas within the Canberra Nature Park will be closed from 6 pm Tuesday 22 May 2012 to 6 pm Tuesday 12 June 2012 to allow for the controlled culling of over-abundant Eastern Grey Kangaroos.

The sites to be closed are Callum Brae Nature Reserve, Crace Nature Reserve, Goorooyaroo Nature Reserve, Jerrabomberra West Nature Reserve, Kama Nature Reserve, Mt Painter Nature Reserve, Mulligans Flat Nature Reserve, The Pinnacle Nature Reserve and Wanniassa Hills Nature Reserve.

“The cull of up to 2015 Eastern Grey Kangaroos is needed to maintain populations at appropriate levels to protect the integrity of ecosystems, several of which contain endangered flora and fauna,” said Daniel Iglesias, Director of Parks and Conservation.

To sugar the pill they’ve also announced the results of a survey showing 79% if the population are cool with it.

And to top it off there’s an FAQ.

[Photo from the 2008 cull]

Join the conversation

70
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Disinformation said :

dynomatt74 said :

Pity they don’t have silencers…shooters have been active in the Pinnacle often starting at 3am…noisy. Or is this a 1st world complaint?

Licensed pest exterminators are permitted to use silencers on firearms that will deliver a lethal subsonic projectile to small vermin.
However, the responsible humane dispatch methods of regular culling nf larger animals requires higher muzzle velocities than can be effectively suppressed.
I highly doubt that anyone wants to go to the expense of running exotic calibers like the .500 Whisper just because someone might hear a legal shot going off.

I’m in favour of the culling taking place using nothing but Rocket-propelled grenades. Sure, it would be noisy, but something has been missing from this city since they banned fireworks.

Disinformation2:18 pm 01 Jun 12

dynomatt74 said :

Pity they don’t have silencers…shooters have been active in the Pinnacle often starting at 3am…noisy. Or is this a 1st world complaint?

Licensed pest exterminators are permitted to use silencers on firearms that will deliver a lethal subsonic projectile to small vermin.
However, the responsible humane dispatch methods of regular culling nf larger animals requires higher muzzle velocities than can be effectively suppressed.
I highly doubt that anyone wants to go to the expense of running exotic calibers like the .500 Whisper just because someone might hear a legal shot going off.

dynomatt74 said :

Pity they don’t have silencers…shooters have been active in the Pinnacle often starting at 3am…noisy. Or is this a 1st world complaint?

Similar complaints from places like Liberia, Sierra Leone or Sudan do carry slightly more weight.

Pity they don’t have silencers…shooters have been active in the Pinnacle often starting at 3am…noisy. Or is this a 1st world complaint?

I thought this is interesting and in light of this thread.

Ok it also supports my view that a lot of the protesting about the cull is all about the cute little fuzzy wuzzy animals and absolutly nothing about sound environmental management.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/fluffy-ones-not-the-cutest-policy/4038134

The tapes and signs are still up on Mt Painter, despite it having been declared a lead free zone.

jrsubs said :

Ben_Dover said :

I have the solution!!

THE SIBERIAN TIGER

I see a predator that’s endangered that needs a new range and food source species….

And a grazing species that’s over populated and needs a predator species to reduce it’s numbers….

Sounds like a perfect match….

That sounds like a good idea… and what an amazing animal — 300kg+, 4m long! One advantage of this plan is that as introduced species go it will never do a cane toad or prickly pear, it’ll never get out of control. Because it is so visible, so large, and so terrifying, we’d always be able to keep numbers down, possibly involving the loss of a human or unintended animal or two. But I’m for it, sure would make wandering the Canberra Nature Park more interesting!

And then a bush walk would mean mandatory carrying of a 338 win magnum riffle. Down at my Uncles farm in the Victoria Alps Omeo side Ive hunted Sambar there a few times and there has always been big cat sightings around that area to but never seen one myself. Suppose to be Panthers that were let loose in WW2. Wouldn’t surprise me if they are there but not seen as even in areas like the US where they have mountain lions they are near on impossible to spot same with Leopards in Africa. The only way to spot a Leopard is with baiting.

Ben_Dover said :

I have the solution!!

THE SIBERIAN TIGER

I see a predator that’s endangered that needs a new range and food source species….

And a grazing species that’s over populated and needs a predator species to reduce it’s numbers….

Sounds like a perfect match….

That sounds like a good idea… and what an amazing animal — 300kg+, 4m long! One advantage of this plan is that as introduced species go it will never do a cane toad or prickly pear, it’ll never get out of control. Because it is so visible, so large, and so terrifying, we’d always be able to keep numbers down, possibly involving the loss of a human or unintended animal or two. But I’m for it, sure would make wandering the Canberra Nature Park more interesting!

I have the solution!!

THE SIBERIAN TIGER

It is estimated the wild population of Siberian tigers at around 350-450 tigers.

Almost all wild Siberian tigers live the Southeast corner of Russia in the Sikhote-Alin mountain range east of the Amur River. Their former range included northeastern China and the Korean Peninsula, and as far west as Mongolia. They are the largest of the tiger species and can grow up to 13 feet in length and weigh up to 700 lbs.

The Siberian –or Amur- tiger is considered a critically endangered species with the primary threats to its’ survival in the wild being poaching and habitat loss from intensive logging and development.

Of course there will be some whiners who will say:

“You can’t do that…. tigers aren’t native to Australia….that’s just not right….boo hoo hoo….”

I see a predator that’s endangered that needs a new range and food source species….

And a grazing species that’s over populated and needs a predator species to reduce it’s numbers….

Sounds like a perfect match….

Disinformation11:14 am 24 May 12

The interesting thing about these culls is that they’re done at the recommendation of ecologists. I only know of this because I was going out with one of the ecologists who was engaged to do the study on some of the kangaroo issues around Canberra.
The amount of real information they use to discern the population density of kangaroos and their impacts on the environment was quite extensive. The history of why certain areas have now got large numbers of kangaroos is also very interesting. Something as simple as someone making a casual decision 20 plus years ago “Lets keep these ones inside the fence as pets” can lead to protests by the ignorant and emotionally led over twenty years later. Simple knowledge of the territorial range of kangaroos can make suggestions by the uniformed irrelevant.

For the people who like to temper their decisions with actual information, it would be extremely hard to disagree with the decisions made once you’re in possession of the information available.

For the people who are lead by their emotional response to things, no amount of data is going to change this.

If I was in a position of authority where I had to deal with people who can’t be reasoned with, I’d simply choose to ignore them because they’re unlikely to be won over. If you paid them any attention, you’d encourage them to kick up more of an objection because they think they’re being considered. Once they lost out, they’d complain more that they were ignored.

I doubt EvanJames is still reading this, but for anyone else quoting the report he quoted as ‘research that opposes culling’ can I point out that:

a) it is a legal and moral document, not a scientific one, and
b) what it actually concludes is that:

Quote
a. The law and policy that allows for and regulates
the killing of kangaroos needs to provide clear
justification for that killing through a proper
consideration of the reasons for and against
control.
b. There are quantitative means of identifying damage
to individual properties and these should be
required for a cull/harvest licence on a case by
case basis.
c. Auditing and monitoring should be conducted of
any killing to ensure that damage mitigation specific
objectives are achieved.
d. Density trigger points should be introduced for
each species within all zones and be applicable to
both commercial and non-commercial shooting.
End quote

The Canberra cull meets all of these requirements! So the document supports the activity.

jrsubs said :

. Roos are not “in a natural balance blah blah …”, they populate out of control when given free access to water (from the dams that humans installed) until they eat themselves and everybody else out of house and home. Go and read something about the breeding cycle and general ecology of kangaroos.

There it is.

Lots of people assume that because kangaroos are native fauna they are somehow “natural”. But as I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve witnessed vast populations of roos in central west NSW that seemed entirely unnatural to me, and that was mainly during the awful drought of the early 1980’s. hands up all Rioters who remember *that* drought.

When supplied with abundant water from farm dams (ie unnatural sources) along with food from improved pasture they will breed in unnatural quantities which results in unnatural effects upon the environment.

They’re not destructive bloody introduced vermin like pigs, goats, foxes, cats and dogs, but when their numbers are out of balance with their environment, culling is a reasonable solution.

EvanJames said :

Some science to refute the reasons trotted out in support of the cull:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/13/2597_UTS_policy_report.pdf

And some opinion which summarises the main points:

http://candobetter.net/node/2484

Good grief EvanJames – can you read? That report is not ‘research’ if by that you imply science, it’s “An analysis of the law and policy governing the killing of kangaroos” (that’s in the title). It doesn’t do or analyse a single bit of scientific research. Really people should not be allowed to comment on this issue unless they actually do some ‘research’ of their own. I’ve read a couple of the papers that the ACT commissioned on the subject and the results are pretty unequivocal. There’s NO conspiracy, the ACT Government doesn’t ‘hate kangaroos’, the shooters haven’t conned the government into giving them something to do for fun, no-one enjoys the whole business, and it’s not even for the primary purpose of saving motorists. The purpose, which you’d find out if you read any of the actual documentation, is to save other species that are being lost due to overgrazing and habitat destruction by over-abundant kangaroos. Roos are not “in a natural balance blah blah …”, they populate out of control when given free access to water (from the dams that humans installed) until they eat themselves and everybody else out of house and home. Go and read something about the breeding cycle and general ecology of kangaroos. DO something, anything, but spare us uninformed emotional claptrap. Better still, go and get a degree in some scientific ecological/environmental area and I GUARANTEE you that you’ll then understand, and change your mind. In the meantime, how about showing is all that research that disagrees with the cull? Any?

If anyone wants to read The Kangaroo Management Plan, which is balanced and sensible, it is here:

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/186378/Kangaroo_Management_Plan_complete_for_web.pdf

This reminds me of this scene from Crocodile Dundee (the original)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRL5ly72mdc
Skip to 5 minutes 30 seconds. Sorry,I could not find a shorter version.

Using EvanJames “scientific findings” showing that the real reason for the cull is to prevent damage to shiny cars, then a natural hypothesis to derive from this would be that the majority of opponents to the cull would be Canberra based Panelbeaters and Smash Repairers?

Wow.. that picture is a little too “war crimes” for me.

Does anyone know what they are doing in that picture? Bit late to be measuring the hole isn’t it?

Mr Evil said :

I’m going to propose that a memorial be established to commemorate all the Kangaroos that have died in the ACT since self-Government was established 23 years ago.

Is anyone willing to support my proposal, and do you think I can get Andrew Barr onboard?

Barr will probably only be interested in the gay skippies that have died from AIDS.

p1 said :

Baldy said :

And as for the second link, citing a webpage that also calls for the sterlisation of humans isn’t going to get anybody on your side, and hardly shows a rational mind when talking about this subject.

Actually, I support this, so long as I decide who gets sterilised. I think the easy way would be by postcode.

This one’s easy: they should sterilise everybody who is on welfare and do them, their unborn children, and the rest of us a favour.

Ditto with foreign aid. If they can’t take care of themselves, and we can’t just cull them like we do Kangaroos, then what they need is sterilisation.

Baldy said :

And as for the second link, citing a webpage that also calls for the sterlisation of humans isn’t going to get anybody on your side, and hardly shows a rational mind when talking about this subject.

Actually, I support this, so long as I decide who gets sterilised. I think the easy way would be by postcode.

Mr Evil said :

Professional shooters need only apply:

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/userreport/highly-strung-pig

Yes professional shooters are an interesting group aren’t they.

EvanJames said :

Some science to refute the reasons trotted out in support of the cull:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/13/2597_UTS_policy_report.pdf

And some opinion which summarises the main points:

http://candobetter.net/node/2484

I think you and I have a diferent term for “Scientific evidence” but each to their own. Can you find a study that isn’t obviously biased?

And as for the second link, citing a webpage that also calls for the sterlisation of humans isn’t going to get anybody on your side, and hardly shows a rational mind when talking about this subject.

LSWCHP said :

Arrgh..somehow I pressed “submit” before I’d finished my point. Which is…

I don’t think that killing a couple of thousand kangaroos will irretrievably damage the local kangaroo population. It probably won’t even make a huge dent in the overall regional numbers in the long term.

The discussion seems to really revolve around whether it’s cruel to shoot these lovable, furry national icons. As I’ve stated before on RiotAct, wild animals don’t die peacefully in the Old Wild Animals Home, surrounded by their loved ones as they ascend to join the choir invisible. They become weak as they age. Eventually they are unable to feed themselves (no aged care nurses in wild animal land!) and starve to death while being simultaneously eaten alive by ants and birds. The birds tend to peck their eyeballs out first. I’ve seen it many times, and a more horrible death would be hard to imagine. For those animals, a bullet is a merciful release. If I was dyng in those circumstances I’d hope for the same.

So, some kangaroos will die. That’s tough for them, but they would’ve died anyway eventually under far worse circumstances. In the meantime, there’s a helluva lot of other things that I think are of far greater concern to all of us.

LSWCHP thank you for the graphic description. And for the very valid explination of what would happen if the culling didn’t go through.

Arrgh..somehow I pressed “submit” before I’d finished my point. Which is…

I don’t think that killing a couple of thousand kangaroos will irretrievably damage the local kangaroo population. It probably won’t even make a huge dent in the overall regional numbers in the long term.

The discussion seems to really revolve around whether it’s cruel to shoot these lovable, furry national icons. As I’ve stated before on RiotAct, wild animals don’t die peacefully in the Old Wild Animals Home, surrounded by their loved ones as they ascend to join the choir invisible. They become weak as they age. Eventually they are unable to feed themselves (no aged care nurses in wild animal land!) and starve to death while being simultaneously eaten alive by ants and birds. The birds tend to peck their eyeballs out first. I’ve seen it many times, and a more horrible death would be hard to imagine. For those animals, a bullet is a merciful release. If I was dyng in those circumstances I’d hope for the same.

So, some kangaroos will die. That’s tough for them, but they would’ve died anyway eventually under far worse circumstances. In the meantime, there’s a helluva lot of other things that I think are of far greater concern to all of us.

I used to hunt pigs and goats out near Cobar in the 1980’s. At that time, firing a shot in the middle of a paddock would generally result in the whole countryside rising up out of the long grass and hopping away. I saw mobs of eastern grey roos every day that easily numbered 500+.

I’m not saying that the situation around Canberra is the same, but my point is that kangaroos weren’t endangered back then, and I doubt that they are endangered now.

If after several years of kangaroo cullings the ACT government cannot come up with convincing evidence that culling has lead to improvement in the fauna and flora said to benefit from culling then the government fails to validate their argument for culling. It is now timely and imperative for TAMS to demonstrate the faunal and floral improvements and to demonstrate correlation with the cullings!

EvanJames said :

Some science to refute the reasons trotted out in support of the cull:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/13/2597_UTS_policy_report.pdf

And some opinion which summarises the main points:

http://candobetter.net/node/2484

EvanJames, please tell us which science you are referring to as ‘dubious’.

EvanJames said :

Some science to refute the reasons trotted out in support of the cull:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/13/2597_UTS_policy_report.pdf

And some opinion which summarises the main points:

http://candobetter.net/node/2484

Thanks Evan, but where is the data produced by your observations in your neighbourhood nature reserve which support your conclusion that drought did not affect Kangaroo morbidity or mortality?

Looking at your first link, I see no science, just a big long whinge about “cruelty” from a bunch of loopy animal-lovers. The second link is even worse: emotional appeal and opinion. Rubbish, in other words.

Of course you *do* have the data somewhere, because *you* wouldn’t have been “talking through your arse”, would you…

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

Not just cars, motorbikes too. You don’t want to hit a ‘roo on your bike, that’s for sure.

devils_advocate said :

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

Slightly OT – can anyone reccomend a place that sells kangaroo sausages that have some flavour to them but AREN’T packed with massive amounts of sodium?

Kangaroo sausages are a great low-fat alternative for people keen for a snag but the usual suspects are packing them with salt.

Try Ecomeats at Belco markets. Dunno about low-fat though. Usually a certain amount of fat is required to make a decent snag, so if the ‘roo meat is lean, then the butcher may be adding something like pork fat to get the consistency right. Anyway, the staff there should be able to answer any questions you might have. I particularly enjoyed their kangaroo and emu sausages, but I haven’t seen those there for a while.

Well, the people behind that piece of research are obviously not biased in any way and, as we all know, amazonnews.com is a highly-esteemed source far beyond reproach.

JazzyJess said :

When I lived in Campbell I saw roos on a daily basis but since moving to Gungahlin I could count on one hand the number I’ve seen. Where are they?????

They don’t live in Gungahlin because kangaroos have good taste. That is not the same as saying they taste good.

Thank you Mr Evil.

I needed a giggle.

Mr Evil said :

I’m going to propose that a memorial be established to commemorate all the Kangaroos that have died in the ACT since self-Government was established 23 years ago.

Is anyone willing to support my proposal, and do you think I can get Andrew Barr onboard?

Heh heh. Really? You want taxpayers to pay for the maintenance of a memorial to Kangaroo’s? What about other animals that are legitimatly endangered by human activities?

Some science to refute the reasons trotted out in support of the cull:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thinkk_production/resources/13/2597_UTS_policy_report.pdf

And some opinion which summarises the main points:

http://candobetter.net/node/2484

I’m going to propose that a memorial be established to commemorate all the Kangaroos that have died in the ACT since self-Government was established 23 years ago.

Is anyone willing to support my proposal, and do you think I can get Andrew Barr onboard?

dvaey said :

It seems strange that when it comes to moths and frogs and mosquitos, our govco will reroute roads, replan suburbs and appoint management groups to ensure their survival. But, when it comes to Kangaroos, they just overdevelop and claim a cull is required due to the animals having lost their homes.

Excellent of an underresearched, overemotional response to the issue.

After all, who cares about the nasty endangered species, even if they are vital to the eco system. The big fuzzy cute overpopulated Kangaroo’s are getting shot.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back5:14 pm 21 May 12

I’m in agreement with those who suggested we actually use the carcasses for something, even if it is just fertiliser.

And for what it’s worth, kangaroos are f***ing delicious. Perhaps we should farm the local ones. We could call it ‘Canberoos’.

dvaey said :

It seems strange that when it comes to moths and frogs and mosquitos, our govco will reroute roads, replan suburbs and appoint management groups to ensure their survival. But, when it comes to Kangaroos, they just overdevelop and claim a cull is required due to the animals having lost their homes.

Well, moths and frogs and mosquitos don’t pose a threat to our big, shiny cars. So they are OK.

It seems strange that when it comes to moths and frogs and mosquitos, our govco will reroute roads, replan suburbs and appoint management groups to ensure their survival. But, when it comes to Kangaroos, they just overdevelop and claim a cull is required due to the animals having lost their homes.

Diggety said :

EvanJames said :

No, I’m saying that the science the cull is based on is dodgy, it is regarded as dodgy by a large proportion of the sector interested in animals, and others also. I’m saying that the cull is driven by concern about vehicle/animal collisons, rather than concern for the roos’ welfare and I’m saying that claims the roos will starve if not shot are bogus.

EvanJames, alarm bells ring out in my head when someone claims scientific research to be dodgy- could you expand on that accusation?

I.e. Who makes these claims? Which science is dodgy and how?

I’ll admit I’ve not followed this debate closely at all. But it sounds like an emotionally charged one.

The “dodgy science” bit usually means “It doesn’t agree with my opinon so therefore there is something wrong with it.” It is usually used when someone talks about an issue they read about in the Daily Telegraph but don’t want to do any research themselves. Look at GM crops and Climate Change in particular.

stonedwookie said :

whens the last time you saw a kangeroo starve to death?

Well unless they’re streaming these events live on the interwebs now, I’m not quite sure how one would get that chance…

EvanJames said :

No, I’m saying that the science the cull is based on is dodgy, it is regarded as dodgy by a large proportion of the sector interested in animals, and others also. I’m saying that the cull is driven by concern about vehicle/animal collisons, rather than concern for the roos’ welfare and I’m saying that claims the roos will starve if not shot are bogus.

EvanJames, alarm bells ring out in my head when someone claims scientific research to be dodgy- could you expand on that accusation?

I.e. Who makes these claims? Which science is dodgy and how?

I’ll admit I’ve not followed this debate closely at all. But it sounds like an emotionally charged one.

EvanJames said :

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

Would you mind providing a link to your observational data?

I’m interested in time series data points including
– dry-weight grazing per m2
– numbers of animals
– weight of animals
– joey numbers
– joey attrition rate
– adult attrition rate

It will be good to have this data, because that will ensure that nobody is, as you put it, “talking out of their arse”.

EvanJames said :

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

There’s been a large buy-in by Canberra people into the “need” for the cull, which is based on some pretty dodgy science, and you can only conclude that it’s out of concern for cars rather than the animals.

So you say “I don’t believe they are starving because I personally haven’t seen it so all the experts must be wrong” and you say I’m talking out of my ass????

Here’s a hint not usually seen on this website – research. It might do you some good to get factual information instead of assuming.

No, I’m saying that the science the cull is based on is dodgy, it is regarded as dodgy by a large proportion of the sector interested in animals, and others also. I’m saying that the cull is driven by concern about vehicle/animal collisons, rather than concern for the roos’ welfare and I’m saying that claims the roos will starve if not shot are bogus.

I actually already said all of that.

And the talking out of your arse was in response to your flights of fancy about how opponents of the cull can’t see past how cuddly roos are. I don’t think they’re cuddly. I already said that, too.

So you are saying that you represent all opponents of the culling. So far all I have seen regarding their claims against it is heartwarming stories about the cute fuzzy wuzzy creatures will get hurt and fallsed down.

hat part of the “large proportion of the sector interested in animals” are we talking about here because the RSPCA certainly agree with the culls. Animal welfare groups are hardly biased enough to consider the issue beyond their own agenda and this city, as much as I love it, has yet to prove to me that it’s “concerned citizens” groups can see further then their own needs.

p1 said :

JazzyJess said :

When I lived in Campbell I saw roos on a daily basis but since moving to Gungahlin I could count on one hand the number I’ve seen. Where are they?????

In Campbell, obviously.

I see what you did there.

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

There’s been a large buy-in by Canberra people into the “need” for the cull, which is based on some pretty dodgy science, and you can only conclude that it’s out of concern for cars rather than the animals.

So you say “I don’t believe they are starving because I personally haven’t seen it so all the experts must be wrong” and you say I’m talking out of my ass????

Here’s a hint not usually seen on this website – research. It might do you some good to get factual information instead of assuming.

No, I’m saying that the science the cull is based on is dodgy, it is regarded as dodgy by a large proportion of the sector interested in animals, and others also. I’m saying that the cull is driven by concern about vehicle/animal collisons, rather than concern for the roos’ welfare and I’m saying that claims the roos will starve if not shot are bogus.

I actually already said all of that.

And the talking out of your arse was in response to your flights of fancy about how opponents of the cull can’t see past how cuddly roos are. I don’t think they’re cuddly. I already said that, too.

EvanJames said :

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

There’s been a large buy-in by Canberra people into the “need” for the cull, which is based on some pretty dodgy science, and you can only conclude that it’s out of concern for cars rather than the animals.

So you say “I don’t believe they are starving because I personally haven’t seen it so all the experts must be wrong” and you say I’m talking out of my ass????

Here’s a hint not usually seen on this website – research. It might do you some good to get factual information instead of assuming.

EvanJames said :

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

There’s been a large buy-in by Canberra people into the “need” for the cull, which is based on some pretty dodgy science, and you can only conclude that it’s out of concern for cars rather than the animals.

…because the ACT Government just LOVES cars

JazzyJess said :

When I lived in Campbell I saw roos on a daily basis but since moving to Gungahlin I could count on one hand the number I’ve seen. Where are they?????

In Campbell, obviously.

When I lived in Campbell I saw roos on a daily basis but since moving to Gungahlin I could count on one hand the number I’ve seen. Where are they?????

Baldy said :

Growing up in the conutry where shooting was a pasttime I’m quite happy for only professional shooters to do this instead of some cowboy getting his rocks off on the vibration of a gun.

In my experience with Professional ‘roo shooters, they tend to be the worst of the trigger happy banjo players. I am sure this is an unfair generalisation though.

Another vote here for the “if we are gonna whack the critters we should at least use the carcasses for something.

So much for No Waste by 2010.

Diggety said :

Food and/or fertilizer please.

What a waste otherwise…

Aboslutely. Captain Kangaroo Burgers, or Skippy Brand Blood and Bone.

But just burying them? Really?!

Food and/or fertilizer please.

What a waste otherwise…

pink little birdie11:57 am 21 May 12

devils_advocate said :

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

Slightly OT – can anyone reccomend a place that sells kangaroo sausages that have some flavour to them but AREN’T packed with massive amounts of sodium?

Kangaroo sausages are a great low-fat alternative for people keen for a snag but the usual suspects are packing them with salt.

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

go to a butcher that make their own sausages… try Kambah Meatways…

stonedwookie said :

whens the last time you saw a kangeroo starve to death?
funny how were not allowed to hunt but when the government wants to go shoot stuff its fine

I figure it’s a matter of trusting Government shooters not go overboard and shhot anything that moves or, in teh case of road signs, don’t move.

Growing up in the conutry where shooting was a pasttime I’m quite happy for only professional shooters to do this instead of some cowboy getting his rocks off on the vibration of a gun.

Baldy said :

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

Unfortunately, you’re talking through your arse. Where I live there’s a large resident roo population plus the usual itinerant groups (usually groups of males). They’re not particularly cute, the males in particular are quite assertive and even aggressive.

But even in the worst of the drought, they weren’t starving to death. Some of the larger males became slightly less-well-muscled, but that was it.

There’s been a large buy-in by Canberra people into the “need” for the cull, which is based on some pretty dodgy science, and you can only conclude that it’s out of concern for cars rather than the animals.

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

I’m surprised there were 6 posts before an uniformed response like this one ^^

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

I agree, what a waste of perfectly good food.

I would have less problems with these culls if we used the meat instead of just burying them. Or maybe we should have kangaroo “farming” all year round by a company or two, completely regulated, and maybe it would lessen the need for these kind of culls. I for one would happily eat Canberran kangaroos!

stonedwookie11:44 am 21 May 12

whens the last time you saw a kangeroo starve to death?
funny how were not allowed to hunt but when the government wants to go shoot stuff its fine

EvanJames said :

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

No too many Kanagroo’s means they will compete with each other. There just ins’t enough grazing land around to sustain the kangaroo population.

If you look beyond there cuddliness and actually into the way they live, you will see what the animals have to go through to get a decent feed.

Unfortunaly most people don’t see bebyond the “awww it’s a cute little animal”.

devils_advocate11:37 am 21 May 12

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

Slightly OT – can anyone reccomend a place that sells kangaroo sausages that have some flavour to them but AREN’T packed with massive amounts of sodium?

Kangaroo sausages are a great low-fat alternative for people keen for a snag but the usual suspects are packing them with salt.

Pointless and cruel. It’s got nothing to do with roos starving to death, and everything to do with lazy Canberrans worried that roos will crash into their precious cars. It’s a disgrace.

Baldy said :

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

Haven’t you heard? Since the Russian and Chinese stopped ordering Kangaroo meat there isn’t much of a market. Apparently Austraian’s don’t like Kangaroo meat. I don’t know why. As you said it is yummy.

Damn! Just given up all the meat that doesn’t swim, and yes, I’ll miss the Skippy Steaks. I don’t know if I thought this one through…..

They seem to be burying those bodies far too deeply to be of any benefit to the land.

2000 kangaroos would be almost 100 tonnes of fertiliser for the ACT’s thin topsoils. Such a shame to waste a potentially valuable resource like that.

Primal said :

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

Haven’t you heard? Since the Russian and Chinese stopped ordering Kangaroo meat there isn’t much of a market. Apparently Austraian’s don’t like Kangaroo meat. I don’t know why. As you said it is yummy.

What a tragic waste of deliciousness.

So are we going to have to spend months listening to brainless animal haters climbing fences hoping to get shot instead of the Knagaroos and protesting that they kangaroos should starve to death instead?

If they’d made it 2,013 kangaroos then they could have done some cross-promotion with the centenary.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.