Japan's outrage at kangaroo cull

[Violet_Crumble]

Source: news.com.au

JAPAN is using the slaughter of hundreds of eastern grey kangaroos in Canberra to undermine Australia's anti-whaling crusade.

Japanese television and radio yesterday covered a small protest over the culling of as many as 500 kangaroos in the northern suburb of Belconnen.

Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical.

"It's a sad thing. Kangaroos are Australia's national icon, and 400 kangaroos are going to be killed by the Government,'' he said.





Read more: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23384169-401,00.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. Ass

Maybe he doesn't understand the concept of "overpopulation" vs. "endangered species", but we're not all that dumb.

[ZombieHorde]

26. From the article...

"Kangaroos are a protected species under the 1975 Wildlife Act,''

[Forkboy]

2. Thing is, Japan don't really give a shit about the roos.

They're just playing gotcha. But, on the other hand, it does make Australia look a little hypocritical, though I understand the reasons.

This sounds like a GD-P type of story. ;)

[LeftyMom]

3. They're both wrong.

This is just "Mom! Look what Timmy did" nonsense from Japan, trying to get attention off of their whale hunt.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. No, the cull's not wrong...

As rockymountaindem pointed out, in one case it's killing off endangered species vs culling an out of control population. I live in Canberra and know the area where the kangaroos are, and if they're not culled, they're going to end up dying really slowly and painfully. There's very few trees there to provide shade, and I didn't even think there was water there at all. If relocating them was a viable option, I'd support it, but it's not...

[LeftyMom]

7. You know how they kill the pouch young, right?

That's pretty much wrong by definition.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. I know exactly how the roo's are being euthanased...

They're going to be shot with tranquilisers and then euthanased. Culls have been done here quite a few times in the past, and there's no gory stuff like clubbing them over the head or anything like that. What's wrong is to let them all stay there and die a horrible death from heat and thirst, which is what would happen in Belconnen if something isn't done...

What would be wrong and hypocritical is if the Australian govt were to cull platypuses or koalas, which of course would never happen. Both are endangered species and not pests, and would be a parallel to the culling of whales...

on edit: Here's some information on the reasons why the kangaroos have to be culled, other options that have been tried, and there's a link in there that leads to reports from the Kangaroo Advisory Committee...

Why it is neccessary to reduce eastern grey kangaroo populations at Majura Training Area and Belconnen Naval Transmitting Station in the ACT

[LeftyMom]

10. So the gov't reccomendation to kill pouch young by swinging their head against something is lying?

Or did swinging them by the feet and hitting their heads against vehicle tow bars, or shotgunning joeys, somehow become humane?

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/new-roo-kill-code-targets-joeys/1156568.html

05 January 2008 - 10:33AM
New roo kill code targets joeys
Rosslyn Beeby

Shotguns can now be used to kill kangaroo joeys at close range under proposed changes to the Federal Government's kangaroo shooting laws.

The proposal has enraged animal welfare groups, including the late Steve Irwin's Wildlife Protection Association and RSPCA Australia, which had called for a total ban on shotguns in the revised National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies.

The new code also recommends killing pouch joeys by "forcefully swinging" the head against a vehicle tow bar, despite calls for the Federal Government to fund urgent scientific research to establish more humane ways of disposing of pouch young after the mother has been shot.

The previous code did not provide any guidance on dealing with orphaned young at foot joeys aged from nine to 12 months that have left the pouch but are still dependent on the mother for food. The new code suggests using shotguns to kill these joeys, as well as pouch young, at close range if the mothers are shot.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. What's a PROPOSED law change got to do with the cull?

There's not going to be any gory head bashing stuff happening in the cull. What you posted is to do with dealing with things like farmers who have shot the mother. Surely you don't think the joeys should be left to fend for themselves? They'd die quickly. While I oppose the bashing their heads in plan, I can't see anything wrong with shooting them...

[LeftyMom]

12. You don't think there's anything wrong with shooting pouch young and joeys?

Oh dear.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. No, it's much better than the alternative, which is inhumane...

You don't think there's anything wrong with leaving them to die a slow and horrible death?

Oh dear...

btw, where did you get the idea that any of the kangaroos to be culled at Belconnen and Majura are to be killed inhumanely?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. I don't think there's anything wrong with lethal injection...

Which is how the cull is going to be done. Unless you have information to the contrary on that?

[LeftyMom]

15. it would certainly be unusual.

Generally the gov't has them shot. They train the hunters to aim for the head, but don't have reliable figures for how many aren't killed cleanly (because the tracking comes from hide facilities, and most of them only buy head shot animals) however it's a significant enough issue that the guidelines were amended to make it clear that a neck shot is not a head shot (apparently the people doing the culling missed kindergarten anatomy) and that neck shots were inhumanely slow.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Well, lethal injection is how this cull's being done...

If they were going to shoot them they wouldn't be wasting time shooting them with tranquilisers first. I know shooting was how the cull at Googong was done, and to be honest I really don't care where the bullet gets them as long as they're killed quickly and don't suffer...

Are you opposed altogether to kangaroos being culled or their populations being controlled? I know some people are, but I think those folk might suffer from *Cute Furry Skippy* syndrome and not see that in some cases (while I think the current cull is necessary I'd be opposed to any culls in areas like Namadji) there really is no other option but to try to control the population explosion...

[LeftyMom]

18. Oh pull the other one.

I'm not a goddamn cuddlytarian. I've posted, at last count, about eighty skillion threads on animal issues, feel free to peruse them if you doubt that.

Do I have an issue with killing animals as a form of population control? Absolutely. Nature controls populations adequately on it's own, and the need to control "exploding populations" of herbivores usually just means the need to farm, ranch or build subdivisions on their property and eat or wear their bodies. Animals that aren't tasty, profitable or getting in the way of animals that are seem to be left to sort themselves out, do they not?

[Violet_Crumble]

20. I've really got no interest in searching out squillions of yr posts...

Sure, given our current severe drought, nature will control the kangaroo population, and it'll be slow, brutal and cruel. So given yr *knowledge* of Canberra and that you think there's no problem with the kangaroo population in Belconnen, what do you suggest? If it's 'leave them alone', I'm quite happy to snap some pics of starved kangaroos so foreigners who are opposed to euthanasia can feel real warm and fuzzy when they gaze on what's left of a kangaroo that's had no food and water...

[LeftyMom]

21. Where on earth did I say that?

So far you've provided no evidence that there will be an effort to use humane euthanasia. Care to back that up? Ideally along with an explanation of how that's going to work.

And as far as management goes I would suggest leaving them some space, not using up all the water, and if there's a problem beyond that nature tends to sort it out via predation, assuming you don't get in the habit of killing off all the local predators. You hear this exact same nonsense here in the states about deer (oh the poor things, if we don't shoot them and eat them they'll all starve or be hit by cars, so we'll just go kill them, and oh mercy! we can't let those carcasses go to waste, so we'd better eat them and mount the racks of the big males, and did we mention that our population control effort killed mostly males?- hunters are so transparent) but the fact is that herbivores tend to limit their own reproduction and have higher stillborn rates when times are lean, so those populations control themselves, and those natural boom and bust cycles and predation are needed to maintain a healthy population. In places where significant predators remain (here we have mountain lions, as well as some black bears farther uphill) the populations balance each other, only in areas where the predators have been killed or run off do you get population booms in large herbivores.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. You did say that...

'Nature controls populations adequately on it's own, and the need to control "exploding populations" of herbivores usually just means the need to farm, ranch or build subdivisions on their property and eat or wear their bodies.'

As for proof, I've been reading the local media and what the Mimister for the Environment says and they've said it's going to be done by lethal injection. If you've got any evidence that they're lying, feel free to share...

You say that herbivores control their own reproduction. I don't know if it makes a difference, but kangaroos are macropods and they don't control their own reproduction. They don't have breeding cycles and they breed all year round, regardless of the conditions around them. Think rabbits and yr coming close to how quickly kangaroo populations multiply.

Have you seen the area of land in Belconnen? It's a largish grass area with few trees and as far as I'm aware, very little water. And what water there is would be drying up to nothing with the continuing drought. Kangaroos there have already started dying due to the conditions, and I think it'd be horrible to see the rest of them die like that. The RSPCA said last night that they'd have preferred a mass relocation of the kangaroos to somewhere else, but I don't know where the *somewhere else* would have been, or how realistic it would have been to carry out...

[ZombieHorde]

25. Humans do not kill animals for their benefit.

We kill animals for our own benefit. We can't stand to see them suffer, so we kill them. It is purely hedonistic.

Animals, no mater how messed up, try to survive. An animal will chew its own leg off when trapped. Simple observation seems to strongly suggest that an animal would rather live a miserable life than die.

I am sure that there have been a few exceptions.

[Kutjara]

5. So first Japan tries the old "scientific whaling" scam.

Then, when that's shown to be a pretty thin tissue of deceit, they start making big development grants to third-world members of the IWC, in the hopes that having a new baseball stadium or airport may convince these countries that whaling is actually a good idea. When even that doesn't secure the required voting bloc, Japan now turns to pointing the finger and squealing, "Daddy, daddy, look! They're doing it too."

Meanwhile, there is precious little evidence the Japanese public has any pent-up demand for whale meat. The government keeps dumping the surplus onto elementary school cafeteria menus, but the almost universal response from schoolchildren is "ewwwwww."

Frankly, I'm not sure why the Japanese government persists with this. They could simply pay the few thousand whalers a lifetime pension, and it would cost a fraction of the money they've wasted propping up the anachronistic whaling industry. I know there's all this guff about "tradition" and "way of life," but all that usually means is that the person or persons with their hands in the cookie jar have managed to keep themselves hidden. I wonder who's really benefiting from whaling?

[Boojatta]

6. In November, will they protest against Guy Fawkes Day?

Surely to have a Guy Fawkes Day is to make Guy Fawkes into an icon, but Guy Fawkes was killed just like a kangaroo.

[ohio2007]

9. it's research . nt

[jwirr]

17. I would assume that the kangaroo cull was because the drought

has made it impossible for the larger numbers of kangaroos to survive and they had to reduce the numbers so they would not all die. That happens here in northern minnesota with the deer population when we have a bad winter. I do not think Japan can claim they are culling the whale.

[BobTheSubgenius]

19. They're probably just "counting" them.

I hate to seem like I'm passing judgment, especially on an issue I know little about - what may well be rhetoric from either or both sides is hardly information. Still, I'd be willing to go all in if someone offered up a wager that there were more whales than kangaroos.

[flvegan]

23. 400 kangaroos, eh?

How many whales was that little bit of bullshit worth, Japan?

Fuck 'em both. If *people* weren't so insisting on fucking with ecosystems and the normal predation methods, there'd be no "need" for any culls. Cue hunter/deer/wolf bullshit. Enter stage left...

[ZombieHorde]

27. "How many whales was that little bit of bullshit worth, Japan?"

Three.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23384169-401,00.html

[HowHasItComeToThis]

24. FREE TRADE IS A SICKNESS