An Australian Department of Defence proposal to cull 400 Eastern grey kangaroos in Belconnen has generated a diverse range of responses on ABC News Online comments.
A contributor, Annabelle, said,
“The killing of kangaroos for convenience is disgusting. Killing kangaroos is just like killing whales-not necessary. It is a hang over from the ‘we must conquer the bush’ mentality of the past.”
It would be easier for the Department of Defence to take no action, which is problematic from an animal welfare perspective because no culling has the potential negative effects on this Eastern grey kangaroo population to lead to insufficient food and shade for the kangaroos. In addition, in this case, expert opinion suggests the Department of Defence needs to cull some of the kangaroos to protect endangered grasslands and amphibian species.
It is also questionable that the killing of kangaroos is not necessary, as asserted by Annabelle, considering that it appears there is overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on this site.
According Michael Linke, the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, there are approximately 600 kangaroos on a site with room for about 100 kangaroos.
The CEO of the New South Wales branch of RSPCA Australia told Kerri-Anne Kennelly that in the past 10 months, there is an additional 80 kangaroos on the site.
Since it appears that Eastern grey kangaroos are overpopulating the site and are continuing to increase in numbers, it is arguably necessary to cull to reduce the numbers of kangaroos on the site. The cull in this case is clearly to reduce numbers of kangaroos on this site since the proposal is for the culling of 400 kangaroos, rather than killing all the kangaroos on the site.
In addition to overpopulation of Eastern grey kangaroos on the Belconnen site, according to ACT Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope, experts argue that overpopulation of kangaroos on the site is causing damage to endangered native grasslands and lizards . Considering that overpopulation is causing damage to endangered grasslands and species, it is arguably necessary to cull some of the kangaroos on this site to protect the environment and biodiversity on the site.
In contrast to Annabelle’s view, a contributor at ABC Online using the name ‘wildlife rescuer’ said,
“I work as a volunteer animal rescuer. Let me explain some things for you: 1. All kangaroos have home ranges (area which they know intimately) which means if relocated they become lost, confused and more often die from stress; 2. To sedate and move 400 adult kangaroos (each weighing up to 90kgs) is going to take a lot of manpower and drugs regardless, you also need people at the relocation site to ensure sedation doesn’t have nasty side effects; 3. Due to the drought we are getting more calls to kangaroos in suburbia where they have gotten lost in looking for food which just isn’t around, in travelling on concrete and asphalt these animals destroy the pads on their feet and need to be euthanized anyway. So although I am an animal lover, rescuer and activist even I have to admit that the best thing for these animals is to put them down in this instance because to move them is to kill them slowly and cruelly and with no food available nature is doing the same thing. Why make them suffer when the solution can be painless for them?”
While wildlife rescuers contribution is an opinion, it is arguably an opinion informed by practical experience and training. This opinion is interesting because it suggests that the decision to cull kangaroos in this case is in the best interests of the kangaroos in question, rather than being a choice between the best interests of the kangaroos and the best interests of humans. It is also interesting to note that the view of ‘wildlife rescuer’ is consistent with the expert advice to the ACT Government, which recommended a cull as the most humane option.
Despite expert evidence that culling of 400 kangaroos on the Belconnen site is necessary to effectively reduce environmental damage to the site caused by overpopulation by the kangaroos, activists argue for the relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales. It is questionable whether re-locating the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales is a viable option, considering that veterinarians and animal welfare experts argue, in a report to the ACT Government, that relocation is traumatic to the kangaroos and is an inhumane option in this case . It is questionable whether relocation is a viable alternative in this case because New South Wales law utilises the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species in order to resolve the problems associated with overpopulation. Given that New South Wales utilises commercial harvesting and culls to address overpopulation by some kangaroo species, it is arguable that relocating the 400 kangaroos will avoid the killing of these kangaroos. It is interesting to note that it is unclear whether the New South Wales Government would allow the relocation of the 400 kangaroos to New South Wales .
Then on ABC Radio National ‘World News Today’ on Tuesday, April 1, 2008, the Department of Defence announced that the planned cull of 400 Eastern grey kangaroos on its Belconnen site would no longer take place because the Department of Defence is researching relocating the kangaroos. The Department of Defence spokesperson claimed that the Department of Defence had always wanted to relocate the 400 Eastern grey kangaroos but the ACT Government only granted a permit to allow for the culling of the kangaroos.
For the CEO of the ACT branch of RSPCA Australia, Michael Linke, this decision is questionable because the expert evidence, in this case, is that a cull was the most humane option. In this case, a cull was the most humane option because experts on animal welfare view relocation as traumatic and inhumane to the kangaroos.
It is unclear how the kangaroos would adapt to changes in location.
It is also questionable whether the Department of Defence decision to research relocating kangaroos is a positive considering that this is research on relocating an abundant species. It is arguable that there is a greater need to research relocating endangered species to improve their chances of survival. The relocation of the kangaroos to New South Wales is also questionable considering that New South Wales law enables the commercial harvesting and culls of abundant kangaroo species, including the Eastern grey kangaroo.
It is interesting to note that the Department of Defence decision to research relocation comes after two weeks of activists protesting at the Belconnen site with media coverage of the issue. It is curious that the Department of Defence is now a vocal supporter of a relocation plan, considering that representatives of various animal welfare/wildlife activist groups argued that relocation is an alternative to the cull.
Considering that veterinarians and RSPCA surgeons agree that relocation is traumatic and inhumane, it is questionable whether wildlife/animal welfare activists were protesting for the best interests of the kangaroos because they support the inhumane option rejected by experts. However, by researching the relocation of the 400 kangaroos from the Belconnen site, the Department of Defence is effectively acting against expert advice on the best interests of the kangaroos, by ‘researching’ a inhumane alternative, to appease activists who appear to have no idea about why the cull is necessary and the effect of relocation on kangaroos.
————-
Nichole has posted a lot of information on kangaroos at the environment wiki linked to this blog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Australian_Kangaroos
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
As a person who in this case that can not judge if it’s necessary to cull the kangas , I will just point out that sometimes you must take uncomfortable decisions including euthanising animals/ culling them for their own welfare’s sake.
And as a person that is in contact with this issues , you will find wildlife rehabilitators that are very unwilling to euthanise animals , even if it would be better for the animals.
I have encountered unprofessional individuals that are not keen on to take the animals to vets, afraid that the vet’s would take the decision to euthanise the animal.
It will be interesting to follow this roo culling in Australia vs the whaling and hunting issue.
If the animals are culled , the meat should be utilised IMO , as to save other critter’s life…
Ann: If the animals are culled , the meat should be utilised IMO , as to save other critter’s life…
McDonald’s is eagerly awaiting a fresh supply of meat, as happened in the past when kangaroo meat was mixed into their hamburgers–until it made people hopping mad.
3.6 million kangaroos are shot each year, so what makes these special? They will be moved to NSW where they will die probably by shooting. I suggest if the activists are so concerned they should each take a number and look after them instead of imposing a cost on Canberrans in general. I charge that the kangaroos were pawns in this game. A housing development was intended for the site now it will be one public building, maybe. Who won? It certainly wasn’t the kangaroos.
I get the impression that people get upset when they hear about culls, as opposed to harvests.
Sir Paul McCartney deserves a mention. If the cull means so much he could dedicate a corner of some surplus estate somewhere and take the lot.
Problem solved!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/mccartney-slams-garrett-over-kangaroos/2008/03/12/1205126014072.html
These people are an extreme minority why are they listened to? Another issue in this vain in the ACT is cage eggs, in the ACT we have set about stopping the production here of cage eggs. As someone who was raised on an egg farm I think it is ridiculous. The result will be that we buy more cage eggs from somewhere else. Probably a fair number will be in cartons marked free range. The prices asked for free range are far too low.
I generally agree with Ann’s comments on utilising kangaroo meat. However, in this case, it is not possible to commercially harvest the kangaroos in question because the ‘Code of Practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos’ requires the use of high-calibre rifles when shooting kangaroos (compliance with the Code is a condition of a licenses to shoot kangaroos in Australia). Since suburbia surrounds the Belconnen site, the use of high-calibre rifles is not a viable option for public safety reasons. It is somewhat ironic to note that commercial harvesting of these kangaroos would only be possible if relocation of the kangaroos occurs.
For More information on the culling of kangaroos in Belconnen, see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Campaigning
For more information on the requirements of the Code of Practice, see
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/AnimalWelfare
In circumstances where it is possible to shoot kangaroos humanely and in their own environment, I agree that we should utilise the meat and skins. This view is present in the New South Wales law requirement that commercial shooters harvest both the meat and skin from kangaroos they shoot.
For more information on the harvesting process see,
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Commercial_Harvest
For more information on laws regulating commercial harvesting see,
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Regulation_of_Commercial_Harvesting
Ann raises an important point on the attitudes of some individuals concerned with wildlife protection/rehabilitation. I find it disturbing that such individuals oppose euthanizing wildlife, despite the fact that euthanizing is necessary, in the best interests of the animal, when the alternative is to have the animal die a slow and painful natural death. However, I take comfort from the fact that RSPCA Australia advocates an approach of gaining evidence and expert advice, from veterinarians and utilising their own expertise on cruelty to animals, to determine the best interests of particular animals in the circumstances of each case.
For more information on the position of RSPCA Australia, see,
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Animal_Welfare
In relation to DHMO and mjp’s challenge to activists to act on their concerns and provide funding to save the kangaroos, I agree that if groups such as Viva really care about the kangaroos, they should raise funds to enable them to take responsibility for the kangaroos. However, I suspect that it is easier to get people to sign a petition than to provide money to actually do something, since it is easier to tell others what to do rather than do something yourself.
For more information on the campaigns of various activist groups, such as Viva see,
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Campaigning
Round them all up, sedate them, put them on a truck and deliver them to that prick who’s inherited wealth funded the Wentworth Group. I hear he has some spare land, even calls himself a farmer these days.
Or better still, take the names of each protester, find their address and drop one off for them to look after. They are all big on opinion but, once again, totally lacking in responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
And after they sheepishly hand back the aforesaid “bunnyroos” the ADF can shoot them, process the meat and send it to Darfur where it will do some good.
It is interesting that you mention the protesters. One of the protesters I saw on the news at Camberra is the same bloke I saw at the Wadonga Hunting Expo. At the expo he chained himself on a belcony above the police table in the Expo. He then ripped up paper and through it at the police and others while yelling abuse. When the police eventualy got sick of him they were kicked by him while trying to cut him free.
That would be about right Goodoo, fresh from rent-a-dropkick. I wonder what proportion of them actually own land and take responsibility for it and the wildlife on it.
Typical stereotyping and ignorance from Ian Mott I see. Must be hard to stand on a soap box with your head up your backside Ian.
Then, please, enlighten me, Greg. What proportion of them actually have land and exercise real, practical custodianship?
A mate mentioned how one dozer driver dealt with a protester who had chained himself to the dozer blade. He just walked off into the bush with a shovel and plastic bag and came back ten minutes later with half a Bull Ants nest in it. The Planet Ponce was gone in no time.
The lesson? Never piss-fart about with $hit.
If there is a large gathering of them, then bring along a rugby ball. And after accepting that they have prevented you from doing your job, you have every right to fill in time with a game of “cross country rugby”. And if the ball happens to get kicked into the crowd, well, you need to get in there and get it quick. Because if you don’t then a ruck might form and both players and spectators could end up on the bottom of that ruck and who knows what might happen. Rugby, especially “cross country rugby” is a game of some considerable subtlety, but some of the forwards are not known for their sidestep.
More stupid questions from Ian. Do you think census forms have a section asking people their environmental pursuation, land holdings and how they utilise such holdings in line with their ideals? Asking such questions for which no concrete answers exist is a common tactic for you. It then enables you to jump up and down in glee and delusion thinking you have somehow won an argument. In reality both the question and reaction are that of a child. Meanwhile, us adults saunter off in embarrassment wishing you would either grow up or go away and play your stupid games on a busy highway.
Was that your considered spleen vent, Greg, or just your knee jerk one? Maybe 3/10 at best but at least I can report that I have finally been accused of glee. Ain’t I just a sick puppy?
Re wjp’s comments on Paul McCartney. I would be careful about the link between Viva’s campaign and McCartney, on this particular issue. This is because Viva’s website contains an undated quote from McCartney referring to commercial shooting (‘the industry’). The same quote was on the website months before the Belconnen cull, along with a quote from Steve Irwin. I guess since Irwin is no longer with us, it is obvious that he is not commenting on the specific issue, although the same point equally applies to McCartney’s quote.
The media appears to have gone for the celebrity taking on the celebrity Environment Minister line, which I am not convinced is actually the case.
Why oh why oh why can i not find fresh kanga meat in butchers? It tastes good, much better for you than beef meat and much better for the environment (kangas are natural here, cows are not).