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?

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.

"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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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

Lauren, firstly a brief response from me:
>And as far as the water supply goes, I think saying tough luck is a bit immature... <
You may well do, but I don't understand why. Try sticking to the argumentation, rather than the simplistic insults, so that you might convince me. I consider it immature for a Canberran to use the word "dude", but let's move on. Yes the water might get dirty at times. I have been to towns in France where the tap water has to be boiled all the time and my friends there have an entire garage full of Evian. Bourgeans are not nearly as well off as Canberrans are but they cop the consequences of their lifestyle.

>. Say if I had $100 dollars (which is also essential for living-now-a-days), but there was some dude who kept mugging me every week and taking $20 of me. Would I just say oh well. That's just tough luck for me...no I wouldn't just say that and I doubt you would either, im sure you'd try and do something about it.<

I certainly wouldn't kill the feller either.

>We can have safe clean water for our children and ourselves.<

May I briefly say that as a student of rhetoric that I admire your constant appeal to "the children". It is admirably manipulative. I mean that sincerely.

>Yes they stress (im sure they would stress when friends and family are taken down, but I don't know how similar to humans they are with emotion and all.<

I agree, you don't know. You have simply swallowed what your high school science teacher taught you without ever questioning it.

>) I know they aren't just numbers but I have to say they aren't exactly human either...<

You know, it's less than 100 years since we used to say that about Aborigines.

>would we be this far today? <
This far? What, progressed enough that we are killing kangaroos on mass? Hooray for us!

>I know it's unfair to kill of kangaroos<

I wish you'd stop pretending you care.

>.. why not bring them down too!?! I'm not going to bother answering that question because it's a silly question and impossible to answer. <

I didn't actually suggest it. What I pointed out was your hypocrisy in not calling for this. As someone else put it, you're an animal-hating greeny. I agree with you that you seem to find it impossible to answer, but that doesn't make it silly. That just makes it a tough question. I wouldn't suggest leaving the National Capital, I'd suggest drastically changing your way of life. How you do this is a matter of conjecture that I won't enter into because I don't want to cloud the issue.

However, I see that many people here have already responded to you more eloquently than I could ever hope to. Here I include the bits I deem most eloquent in the hope you will address them:
So Canberra now has its own Srebrenica, at Googong Dam, where hundreds of kangaroo families were handed over to the bullies with guns and callously executed.
One would have hoped that the Canberrans might have realised that we humans are just animals too, no delusory special creation with imagined dominion.
Bales of Lucerne hay might even have been put out to give them a hand through this dry, cold, grassless winter. Instead we had genocidal species cleansing by murder.
Unfortunately the people of Canberra showed themselves to be as half-educated, self-obsessed and self-serving, and as redneck as any in this Land of the Fair Go, what a sick joke.
There was/no risk of contamination to the water by kangaroos. The ACT Government just lied to justify their decision and it would be appropriate for their actions will to be subject to scrutiny by the ACT Legislative Assembly. Kangaroos pose no threat to your children or the water supply to Canberra.