Whether you like to think so or not, death is a major part of nature, and animals kill animals. If we can eat them, all the better, but we have to take the responsibilities that we have assumed by subverting all the other top-predators around the world.

In the end, do you really think it is natural for one species to sacrifice itself when threatened by the over-population of another species? Hardly. It is sad and silly that people who demand that man consider himself a part of nature are always the first ones to ignore the way nature really works.

We are top predators, and if we don't do our job, over-population will do it for us, and we will suffer along with the ecosystem in question. Disease and famine take over when we are lax; do you think perhaps dying animals relish that sort of death more?

As a Canberran who relies on that water, I can understand the reasoning behind the cull. Killing them now and selling the corpses for food needs prevents the risk of contamination through the corpses of the starving animals. As there are millions of kangaroos, a loss of 800 within the borders of the dam will not significantly effect local populations but will prevent both the kangaroos' death by starvation, something the RSPCA has claimed is their likely fate anyway.

However I have heard of alternative measures which might have been taken that make more sense to me. One for example is building a new fence around the lake, although of course this will mean that most of the surviving kangaroos would lack a water source and die of dehydration.

It's a lose-lose situation, but the best solution is the cull because at least it adds a few much-needed dinars to the local coffers through the supply of kangaroo meat.

I couldn't agree with you LESS Rommers old mate. Apart from anything else the cull isn't only because of the erosion. It is also being done because their are to many roos in the area. As such the kangeroos are dying long, slow painful deaths from starvation. Although this sort of die-off is natural (roo populations ALWAYS have boom and bust periods) it is not pleasant way of dying, shooting is a much better way to go as long as it done cleanly. Trying to save eastern greys is about as pointless and stupid as saving a plague of locusts.

I am in full agreement with the other two posters.

I think the protesters are, and I never thought I'd write anything like this, a bunch of clueless greenies blindly hoping on a bandwagon. It gets me mad because there are so many truly urgent conservation issues that get ignored for pointless popularist causes. And this is coming from a member of Wildcare and a future member of the RSCPA.

Okay well thanks to everyone who posted about the roos, I’m glad to have the debate about an important issue. You have however not yet deterred me.

Toblerone, I’m not surprised we disagree on this but while many of the protesters may be misguided, I think you are wrong to assume it just because they have a different reasoning system to yours. I’m not saying starvation is a fun way to go. But would you suggest we also kill off Indian and Chinese and Rwandan humans on the basis there are too many of those people in those countries and many will die of starvation? You have previously claimed to agree with me that we are not above animals. I presume trying to save grey eastern roos, locusts and Third World people is all equally pointless? Should World Vision just get back to nature and start practising the idea of natural selection?

“As long as it is done cleanly”?!?!?! Did you ever read the journo article I wrote about kangaroo culling? (The one where I did actual research instead of just shooting my mouth off in a blog?). That doesn’t happen. The way kangaroo culling is done in Australia is abominable and painful and horrific. Actually the article I wrote even censored out some of the more horrific tales I was told (about half dead roos being dragged up onto the backs of trucks with hooks stuck through them to help the dragging, for example).

And Toblerone, as for your future membership of RSPCA, that gets no respect from me as you being a greeny. If ever there was a right wing organisation masquerading as a bunch of conservationists, it’s the RSPCA. My dealings with them through that roo story taught me a lot about their inability to take a strong stand in defence of animals. They are a pissweak organisation and they may as well be led by former Environment Minster Robert Hill for all the good they do.

Cacto (do I know you by the way?) as for your comment that killing roos is not going to effect local populations, you seem to have some idea that animals are just numbers. As though it wouldn’t really matter if we had gummi bear roos or real ones, as long as they make up the population numbers we deem correct. Even science has been able to acknowledge that kangaroos suffer stress levels when members of their family or their herd die. Would you tell a woman whose son has just died that it’s okay because her sister just had a baby? “You see love, it won’t affect local population numbers.”. Roos don’t like it when their friends die any more than we do.

As for your fence around the enclosure, that sounds like a half decent idea. You suggest they would die of dehydration. You could always provide them with their own water source rather than keeping it greedily to yourselves as though you are the only animals on the planet. But there are already water shortages in Canberra I hear you cry. Tough luck. Humans made the problem, now humans should solve the problem. I may be going a bit hard line here, but hell it’s fun.

And BS, I realise what you talk about seems like hypocrisy, and it probably is on some level (though no worse than the hypocrisy practised by the cullers), but I think it stems from some attempt by a few in the Green movement to stay “realistic”. (It may or may not surprise you to learn that there is division in the Green movement as there are in any movement because we are all individual people). You claim this is how nature works. Again I would point out that this doesn’t mean we have to keep on making the same mistakes we always have. If that were the case, we wouldn’t have human charities. In fact that’s the whole point of continued human existence (imo) is to improve on where we’ve stuffed up. If death is part of nature, as you claim, then should we stop trying to create peace between nations on the basis that the entirety of human existence has been founded upon war. Should we have left Saddam to his devices on the basis that torture has been an important part of human existence for millennia?

My personal opinion, and you might consider it extreme, but I’d like to hear what you have to say to it, is that as Canberra humans have created the problem, they should cop the consequences, not the roos. Humans have created the water problem, if this means they get dirty water, tough! And I say that cacto, as a former Canberran who once relied on that water and who now has friends who rely on that water.

PS This might sound weird, but do friends mind not calling me by my real name please? I enjoy the anonymity of the net.

"Again I would point out that this doesn’t mean we have to keep on making the same mistakes we always have."

You must first point out that this is a mistake to make that point clear.

"If that were the case, we wouldn’t have human charities."

Nothing about predatory behavior excludes charity. Charity promotes the health and wellbeing of our species. Culling those kangaroos promotes the health and wellbeing of their numbers. Move them, they come back, or overpopulate another area, or starve and die of disease, probably along with the indegenous population of kangaroos wherever you dumped them.

"If death is part of nature, as you claim, then should we stop trying to create peace between nations on the basis that the entirety of human existence has been founded upon war."

There are times that war is necessary, but in general it is something to be avioided. Should the US have stood back and not fiddled in the European "ecosystem" during the 1940's, and let nature take its course? No, you are making my point for me. At times it is necessary to make decisions regarding your wellbeing in an ecosystem. If war is the way to prevent a greater threat, then we must do it.

"Should we have left Saddam to his devices on the basis that torture has been an important part of human existence for millennia? "

Absolutely not. Hussein had to be "culled" for the benefit of the region, the Iraqi people, and possibly even the world as a whole. Again, you are making my point for me. You would rather it been left for nature to fix?

YOverpopulation isn't a beneficial state. If humans overpopulate the world, we'll have to deal with it, or nature will. You'd prefer us to leave that to nature too? Kangaroos, unfortunately, don't have the ability to limit their own numbers, so they rely on their circumstances. We can do it, or let some other circumstance.

We aren't aliens, you know. Humans are a natural part of that ecosystem, and that is what you can't seem to accept. Animals migrate, people migrate. Such migrations caused extinction millions of years before man was even here. People refuse to cut trees, trees die randomly, trees blow down, trees burn, all the trees and wildlife in that forest suffers. Extreme environmentalists pretend that all the harm, death, and destruction come from man, but the fact is Man is an important part of the ecosystem.

NATURE has caused 99.999999% of the extinctions since the beginning of life on this planet without the help of mankind. You might prefer nature to cull these kangaroos, but nature is not humane, and nature won't care if they ALL die, but people like you *do* care. Who should we leave it to? Chaos, or people that care and want the best for the ecosystem?

The fact is, had you not heard about this, had there not been an uproar, the kangaroos would have already been culled, their numbers would be healthy, the problem would be solved, and you would sleep soundly knowing the kangaroos are hopping happily along somewhere. With your principles in play, *all* the kangaroos in that area are at risk of suffering and maybe an awful death. Charitable? Hardly.

This is semantics from you, and I think if you put yourself somewhere outside philosophical thought, you'll find yourself more understanding. If your house was filled with mice, for instance, you'd not risk the health and welbeing of your family to protect their natural sanctity. You'd take care of the problem and live in harmony with all the healthy little mice outside.

I originally wrote heaps but I decided I rather talk to you in person about the bulk of stuff. So I just answer a few points here. Oh and incidently the cull has stopped.

You said:
"You have previously claimed to agree with me that we are not above animals. I presume trying to save grey eastern roos, locusts and Third World people is all equally pointless? "

In reply to my:
"Trying to save eastern greys is about as pointless and stupid as saving a plague of locusts."

The point I was trying to make here is that locust plagues and the population boom of kangaroos are both caused by natural seasonal (or in this case aperiodic) changes in food supply (in case of locusts it can be artificially caused by food crops). Keeping the population the same would mean artificially elevating the food supply throughout the bust period which would throw the ecosystem out of balance by keeping the 'oo pop.above carrying capacity (the amount of animals an area can sustainably hold).

You said:
"My personal opinion, and you might consider it extreme, but I’d like to hear what you have to say to it, is that as Canberra humans have created the problem, they should cop the consequences, not the roos."

The 'roo overpopulation is not caused by humans and neither was the drought (unless of course global warming caused the drought but that is a matter for debate...I'm undecided on that point). It is not up to us to stop natural population fluctuations. If we were dealing with an endangered species I'd be quite willing to join the protestors but eastern greys are nothing of the sort (not to say I support killing them for no reason).
Human starvation happens for completely different reasons (mostly stupid arbitary political and economic reasons), we have more than enough food to feed every human. You know how I feel about human politics and economics and space doesn't permit me to recap here. I don't believe in producing more food for humans than we actually need either. Your analogy to starving people in the third world is completely spurious.

"Should World Vision just get back to nature and start practising the idea of natural selection?"
Natural selection is occurring anyway, whether World Vision does its job or not. Natural selection favours poor uneducated pople and selects out people like ourselves! Evolution only cares for people who breed a lot. Have you meet a Kambah girl lately?

My full view of the human situation is too complicated to go into here.

Yes it is, but what else are we to do with them? And no I don't condone killing the roo's but I also realise that this problem isn't going to fix itself, if something is not done the roo's will be forced further and further into suburban areas, closer and closer to main roads, family pets, children and even swimming pools! (Being woken up with a roo splashing around in your pool isn't that great). Your saying we should find a better way to live with the animals...what would you suggest?? Enclosures? That we have to pay for??

A few points, Lauren (72141) - you said, "I don't condone killing the roo's but I also realise that this problem isn't going to fix itself". Of course it would fix itself - roos have been taking care of their own population levels in times of drought for thousands of years.

And then, "Being woken up with a roo splashing around in your pool isn't that great." - forgive me if I don't feel overwhelming sympathy for someone with a pool (full of the same precious water she wants to kill roos to protect) when she is woken by some poor native animal finding it difficult to get itself out.

Finally - looking for other solutions you said, "what would you suggest?? Enclosures? That we have to pay for??" Heavens!! We couldn't have you actually put up a dollar or so to save them from being killed could we? Again Lauren - seems like your own concerns will always outweigh those of others - including roos'.

It appears to me that the whole basis for this cull is "some may die anyway - we can make a buck by using commercial shooters - let's kill them while they are worth butchering and before they eat the grass the local farmers want their sheep to have".

The idea that we might spend a little bit of money on an alternative, non-lethal solution just won't get a run. It's easier and financially beneficial to kill them.

Lauren says: “will be forced further and further into suburban areas, closer and closer to main roads, family pets, children and even swimming pools! (Being woken up with a roo splashing around in your pool isn't that great).”

Oh my dear Lauren, my heart goes out to you. Not the swimming pool! Is that the one with the spa and the sauna next to it? Still, at least you wouldn’t have to shop for dinner.


“Your saying we should find a better way to live with the animals...what would you suggest?? Enclosures? That we have to pay for??”

No no perish the thought of you ever having to pay money. We all know that would be sacriligious for you to have to actually make any sort of sacrifice of a financial nature.

Quite frankly I don’t think anyone knows the answer yet. But we don’t suggest culling car users or big business people.

Argus Tuft abused me and then suggested I do some research. May I suggest the same to you Argus. I have done quite a bit of journalistic research into kangaroo culling over some years now. Try this site for a less one-sided perspective on the culling of the millions: http://www.greenzine.info/more.php?id=3_0_1_0_M2
Through my journalistic research I found out that there is some research that suggests that culling actually artificially increases population numbers. The culling causes the roos stress. They react by breeding. Vicious cycle. And I emphasise the vicious there.

Until research finds a better way to deal with this, I think Canberrans should just have to put up with the situation they have caused. And I include myself in that on my annual visit South.

Kangaroos "will be forced further and further into suburban areas, closer and closer to main roads, family pets, children and even swimming pools! (Being woken up with a roo splashing around in your pool isn't that great)."
Oh my dear Lauren, my heart goes out to you. Not the swimming pool! Is that the one with the spa and the sauna next to it? Still, at least you wouldn't have to shop for dinner.

Yea, you being sarcastic? I don't see what your issue with that sentence/statement is, it's the truth...

"Your saying we should find a better way to live with the animals...what would you suggest?? Enclosures? That we have to pay for??"

There are enclosures up already to try and stop roos, I mean if it's the swimming pools that are bothering you, you should have a fence around the pool anyway. But no, I don't suggest enclosures. I'm not sure what could really be done but numbers or roos around suburban areas to be moved or limited.
Kenneth brought that question up and I was asking HIM for his brilliant ideas, I wasn't planing to offer any as such... so try bringing that question up with Kenneth.

No, no, perish the thought of you ever having to pay money. We all know that would be sacriligious for you to have to actually make any sort of sacrifice of a financial nature.

We all pay money for this already... they are roos, they aren't the most important thing... what do they REALLY do? Would it matter if some were culled to make it safer? Even environmentally, the roos at the moment are being culled for googong damn, to prevent them dirtying the water supply, the ones in the suburbs are moving closer in to suburban areas and eating peoples laws because there is no food left anyway...

Quite frankly I don't think anyone knows the answer yet. But we don't suggest culling car users or big business people.

I don't think anyone does either, yes but its not always the smartest thing to sit around trying to decide what to do when things such as our water supply and family are put at potential risk? What do you think?
And I understand maybe culling isn't the best way to go, but they are kangaroos, they are not endangered and they can breed pretty fast to so I don't think it will impact hugely on their population in the long run!?

Argus Tuft abused me and then suggested I do some research. May I suggest the same to you Argus. I have done quite a bit of journalistic research into kangaroo culling over some years now. Try this site for a less one-sided perspective on the culling of the millions: http://www.greenzine.info/more.php?id=3_0_1_0_M2
Through my journalistic research I found out that there is some research that suggests that culling actually artificially increases population numbers. The culling causes the roos stress. They react by breeding. Vicious cycle. And I emphasise the vicious there.

Didn't know that, but could possibly be true, but it will buy a bit of time either way...

Until research finds a better way to deal with this, I think Canberrans should just have to put up with the situation they have caused. And I include myself in that on my annual visit South.

Situation "They" have caused? "We" caused it how???

I am sad that the killing of over 1000 kangaroos is proudly considered by our Governement as a "successful" event.

I have read many articles regarding the issue kangaroo culling in Googong Dam in the media and in each case there has been constant reference from the Government that the cull was undertaken based on "expert advice" stating that "the overgrazing by kangaroos was damaging the water catchment, and that the kangaroos themselves were suffering starvation".

At no time do I recall there been any scientific evidence provided to prove any of these reasons for the cull. I belive that Mr Stanhope has a responsibility to make these expert reports availble to the public, to provide justifications for such extreme and finite actions.

SO JOHN STANHOPE, considering the the NSW police incompetent, wants to call in the AFP to assist in the commercial slaughter of harmless, defenceless, healthy kangaroos at Googong Dam.

And what are the AFP going to do? Shoot us? Well, certainly that would be an opportunity for Mr Stanhope, in his warm, safe office, to prove he is serious about killing these kangaroos "at all costs".

And, be assured, that is all he is serious about.

The Government has still not provided one shred of evidence to support the allegation that the kangaroos are damaging the Googong catchment, nor the slightest hint of a long-term plan for revegetating the reserve and surrounding sheep pastures.

Getting shot at by the AFP would also be an opportunity for us, who have been out at Googong in the sub-zero temperatures since the obscenity of this kangaroo harvest started, to prove that we are prepared to defend these innocent animals - at all costs.

One question though: if Mr Stanhope can negotiate for the AFP to operate on NSW land, why could he not negotiate for the slaughter to be conducted under the Code of Practice for the Humane Destruction of Kangaroos that is gazetted under the ACT Animal Welfare Act - instead of the brutal national code under which these killing licences have been issued?

I AM astounded by the double standards of the people opposing the roo cull at Googong. They are purporting to have the roos' welfare at heart by opposing the cull yet have put forward no viable alternative to how the welfare of the animals can be addressed.

In the ACT, rural lessees are required by law to prepare a land management agreement. This spells out how the lessee is going to address such issues as stock numbers, fire and drought protection, natural resource management of water quality.

The removal of excess grazing animals, whether they be sheep or cattle or in this case kangaroos, is a sound land management practice. Unfortunately, roos cannot be sent away on agistment or sent to the saleyards.

I believe that Environment ACT should be applauded for taking what is a controversial decision in the interest of preserving the natural resources that surround the Googong Dam.

Toblerone, that's just the sort of arrogance I;d expect from a canberran. You tell me my argument is spurious, but can't be bothered writing enough to mount a proper argument to convince me. You sit up there in your embassies and your Government buildings telling us that the roos should practically be thanking you for having the kindness to kill them. Just the sort of ridiculous reasoning I'd expect of someone who never sees the real world. I suggest you try going to one of the bushier areas of your town, say Kambah or Isaacs and watch some roo culling. There's no nice clean little kills like you would have us believe. Even the Royal Society for the Protection of Aristocrats says that 0ver 100,000 roos are shot inhumanely every year in Australia. Of course when one considers the stress caused to the other members of the herd when one roo is "culled", the idea of a humance cull seems pretty ridiculous. That's the sort of myth spread by bureaucratic Canberrans so you can all reast easy in your mansions at night. Well educated? I doubt that you are Tobler. You probably went to some pretend Uni in some pretend town.

If you want to hear the government's reasoning behind the cull, check out the press release here: Link