Japan's outrage at kangaroo cull

[ZombieHorde]

By Sharri Markson

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

snip

The cull of Australia's national emblem, which has been supported by Environment Minister Peter Garrett, has been approved to protect native grassland in the ACT.

Some opponents of the cull, however, insist it is really about making the land available for a luxury property development.

Wildlife Protection Association of Australia president Pat O'Brien backed Japan, saying the international media focus on the cull would embarrass the Federal Government.

"Nobody would seriously think that Australia has any right to criticise Japan for its whaling while we are killing three and a half million kangaroos every year for dog food,'' he said.

The cull was also criticised by animal activists including the British group Viva, which has the support of celebrity rock stars such as Sir Paul McCartney and Chrissie Hynde.

snip

Wildlife protection groups argue the kangaroos should be relocated rather than slaughtered, but the ACT Government has refused an export permit, claiming relocating kangaroos is inhumane.

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

[AnnieBW]

1. Kangaroos Aren't Endangered

One big difference - kangaroos aren't endangered. At least not according to the Australia Zoo's website.

http://www.australiazoo.com.au/our-animals/amazing-animals/mammals/?mammal=kangaroos

[depakid]

2. There was an excellent discussion of this on LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3228331&mesg_id=3228331

The only thing I would add to this is that overgrazing by kangaroos also impacts other species, some of which are endangered.

[kristopher]

3. Going off on a tangent

Jared Diamond addressed some of the environmental challenges and related policies facing Australia. Anyone here from that neck of the woods who has read Collapse?

[XemaSab]

5. Collapse

might be the worst book I have ever read. I thought his "research" was crap. x(

[kristopher]

6. Great, you have an opinion. Now tell me why you think so.

[XemaSab]

7. I think it's weak scholarship

I think he picks conclusions and comes up with ideas to fit the conclusions. He writes about complicated ideas, but sometimes I feel like he's better off letting the facts speak without interpreting them.

Admittedly, I didn't get all the way through Collapse. But the thing that weakened the book for me was when he was talking about Easter Island and how supposedly the natives cut down all the trees. His whole argument is contingent on the natives cutting down all the trees, no? But at a different point in the book he mentions that all the fossil tree seeds have rat tooth marks on them.

In short, there is evidence that the trees failed to reforest themselves for reasons that have little to do with humans, but he doesn't elaborate on this because he wants to talk about human-caused environmental damage instead.

That, for me, says that he's more interested in proving a point than in writing about facts. :shrug:

[kristopher]

9. That is a pretty thin reason to reject a massive amount of research

This is a book for popular consumption and as such its format isn't what you'd find in something destined for peer review. However, he clearly labels his sources and discusses the range of research from which his analysis proceeds. On Easter Island he discusses the population density, agriculture, and the physical characteristics of the land that serve to limit regrowth. What is even better is that he also draws a full picture by comparing and contrasting with similar island settlements.

And you reject all that and more because you feel he was writing to a predetermined conclusion?

I think if you investigate, you'll find he is following a research strategy that is sound. I see no instance where he is forcing the data to fit conclusions. He clearly lists his criteria for evaluating the various instances of human environmental impact in the book and he adheres to that strategy with honesty and a remarkable thoroughness. I fail to see a basis for your criticism unless you are philosophically inclined the view that it is best to do research in the absence of explicit hypotheses. Personally I find that without such a guide, there is little chance of bringing order and meaning to mass quantities of otherwise meaningless data.

There is a point in research when it is appropriate to let the data form the image that it will. But there is also a stage where values and passion bring the fruits of that value-free study into the realm of usable knowledge.

I urge you to finish the book.

[XemaSab]

10. I think my mind is made up.

I read all of GG&S and I felt the same way, but less strongly. I know it's a book for popular consumption, but again, it was oversimplified to the point of weakness.

Maybe in a year or so I will finish "Collapse," but I'm not with it right now. :(

[kristopher]

11. If you've read one then you've sorta read 'em all.

Seriously. I believe the purpose of this type literature is to introduce a method of awareness to people who have little or no understanding of how large theories are developed from the bite sized building blocks of diverse research efforts.
I haven't read GG&S and have no intention of doing so; I've got the message already.

What I was actually asking about, though, was his accuracy re the environmental policies and conditions in Australia. I'd hoped someone here might have some experience related to same.

[NNadir]

8. I have read it and I consider it one of the best environmental books I have ever read.

I mused on it here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/22/122533/436

[kristopher]

12. I understand your frustration

With sensationalism, inaccurate information and faulty mental models of the way things are related. But that such things exist in abundance is a fact of life that is inherent to human culture; it isn't going away because it serves a positive function in many cases. As Diamond points out so well, however, it can also bite us in the ass.

[jberryhill]

4. The Japanese Are Protecting the World's Krill From Voracious Whales /nt