Fairfax have today provided space for animal rights activist Brian Sherman to spell out some of his objections to the harvesting of Kangaroos. Unfortunately for anyone interested in this debate, Brian has decided to swamp us with emotive arguments and misinformation rather than addressing the issue honestly.
First Brian tries to upset us by highlighting:
the institutionalised animal abuse that underpins the commercial trade in kangaroo meat.
But doesn’t bother to provide any evidence of this institutionalised abuse.
Then Brian switches to outright misinformation:
Unlike food animals which are “produced” on farms, such as cows and pigs, kangaroos are shot in the bush by people ranging from recreational to professional hunters, free of any oversight or scrutiny.
Along with hinting at animal abuse and comparisons to slaughtering baby seals, it seems like Brian is trying to paint a picture of an unregulated free for all where people are shooting kangaroos on a whim, which are then ending up on supermarket shelves. The problem with this is that Brian’s contention that all of this takes place “free of any oversight or scrutiny” has no basis in fact.
The reality is that the kangaroo harvesting industry is heavily regulated, with multiple safeguards. Before you can pick up a rifle to go kangaroo shooting here are some of the steps you must take:
- Obtain a firearms license;
- Complete a Kangaroo Harvester Accreditation course, which you must redo every five years;
- Complete a Game Meat Hygiene and Handling course through TAFE; and
- Apply for a Commercial Fauna Harvester’s Licence.
The Harvester’s license costs $800 per year, so Sherman’s assertion that people involved in the industry are “recreational hunters” is rather disingenuous. In addition to this, vehicles used by people wanting to shoot for human consumption need to meet stringent guidelines, like having stainless steel trays backs and hot water systems installed for cleanliness, which is also an expensive proposition unless you are serious about this as a small business.
The number of kangaroos harvested each year is set, in NSW, by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water which has a separate quota for each of 14 different regions in the state. Harvesters need to purchase carcass tags from DECCW and tag each kangaroo that they kill for sale, once the quota is reached for any region there are no more tags. No tags, no market for the roo that you shoot as none of the commercial food processors will buy it.
As for Sherman’s argument, again presented without evidence, that:
In a significant number of instances, kangaroos hunted for meat are not killed outright, but seriously injured and left to die slowly and in agony in the bush.
and
kangaroos that are shot in the body cannot be commercially harvested for meat. These victims of the trade are left in the field.
This is unlikely to be the case as landowners simply will not give permission to shooters who leave carcasses all over their property, because, although Brian didn’t mention it, kangaroo harvesting is not allowed in national parks or other areas managed by DECCW, it all occurs on private property. According to Brian, these properties are ‘the bush’.
Sherman also tries to play on people’s ignorance to paint a picture of the industry being negligent or wasteful:
..the capacity for a clean kill can be impaired by many factors. These include poor visibility (kangaroo hunting frequently takes place at night), the size of the kangaroo’s head presenting a small target and some shooters’ limited skills and inexperience.
Actually Brian, kangaroo hunting takes place almost exclusively at night, it’s why the people harvesting them have almost blindingly powerful spotlights to grab the ‘roos attention. As for the ‘roos having small heads, that’s why the rifles have great big scopes attached to them, makes ‘em easy to aim at.
So after painting an inaccurate picture of the people doing the hunting, and the regulations that they operate under, Sherman plays the Skippy card:
Then there are the dependent joeys at foot or in the pouch – an estimated 1.1 million per year – which are the industry’s “collateral damage”.
Estimated by who? Sherman doesn’t say, but he does try his best to make this seem a horrible part of the process:
The unfurred young are bashed to death on the head with a metal pipe or against the tow bar of the hunter’s truck, or decapitated. The Code calls this “euthanasia”. Alternatively, once his or her mother is killed, the joey at foot is abandoned and left to die alone.
Which is it Brian? Euthanasia that you don’t like, or cruel abandonment? Would you be happier if the joeys were shot instead?
Sherman then quotes a new study, which was supported by his own advocacy group, to argue that kangaroo meat cannot supplant meat production from sheep, however this isn’t an argument against the kangaroo harvesting industry as it stands today. It’s like saying we should shut down fish farms because they can’t replace what we catch in the ocean.
If Brian Sherman wants his arguments against harvesting kangaroos to be taken seriously he needs to start by showing some respect to the people in the industry, and arguing the issues honestly. This article does neither of those things.
*The author formerly worked in a store selling firearms.
(Hat Tip: Eponymous)
65 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
“Once again, I ask you: what happens to the roos that are hit but not killed, and escape into the bush?”
As a very occasional, recreation, target only, shooter. If I can hit a roo sized target with my smooth bore, unsighted, matchlock. A professional shooter with a sight and modern high powered rifle isn’t going to miss that often, if at all.
I assume all you vegetarians are getting your food supplies from organic certified sources and bio-diverse farms. We wouldn’t want the lives of thousands of insects and the destruction of natural habitats on your conscience. Or is it just the cute fluffy animals we are not allowed to kill?
I assume all you vegetarians are getting your food supplies from organic certified sources and bio-diverse farms.
Speaking for myself, yes.
“Exactly. And trivially is how most people approach it. Hence the obesity. And the waxy blotchy skin I see everywhere. And the other eating-based diseases and disorders that have been scientifically shown to be on the rise.”
Not getting enough nutrition will kill you a lot quicker than getting too much. A human brought up on a vegan diet – without very careful monitoring – will be lucky to make it through their teens. Even the most grotesquely fat-, grease-, and whatever-laden diet will get the worst couch potato through to their early 30s before a heart attack or something similar kills them.
“Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
This is a straw man. I never said a vegan diet was wrong. I *do* think it’s silly to have one “for ethical reasons”, but that’s a different discussion entirely.
“Just because it’s “instinctive” doesn’t mean it’s right.”
I will, however, happily argue that when it comes to such a fundamental and basic aspect of physical survival, “instinctive” and “right” are pretty much synonymous.
Consider this: do you really think you can argue Humanity as a whole – and still the vast, vast majority today – until the last few decades of its existence was “wrong” ? Because that’s what you’re doing if you insist an omnivourous diet is “wrong”. This is before going into all the other carnivores and omnivores in the natural world.
“Maybe your “omnivorous diet” is “instinctive” purely because it’s part of the Western way of thinking. There are plenty of other cultures who would not find it “instinctive”.”
Really ? Which “culture” are you thinking of that doesn’t partake of animal products when they’re not constrained by an external influence like famine or poverty ? What other omnivores in nature do you see preferring a vegan diet over an omnivourous one ?
the high density farming of cattle, chooks and pigs is a disgrace, and has a pretty significant potential to cause both the animals involved and us considerable harm. (intolerable and unhealth conditions for them, disease incubators and unhealthy food for us).
How does standing knee deep in sh*t your whole life and being forced to eat something nature never intended you to consume, or being confined so you never see the sun, or being held in a cage so small you cannot turn around compare to a free range life followed by a bullet to the head on the cruelty index?
a little off-topic, but why are we not eating our feral camels?
Once heard a African Herdsman remark that vegetarianism is a ‘white man’s problem’. A problem invented where none previously existed.
Granted though, their food chain ethics are somewhat different to ours.
“How does standing knee deep in sh*t your whole life and being forced to eat something nature never intended you to consume, or being confined so you never see the sun, or being held in a cage so small you cannot turn around compare to a free range life followed by a bullet to the head on the cruelty index?”
How is this relevant to whether or not we should eat meat *at all* ?
“a little off-topic, but why are we not eating our feral camels?”
Most likely some combination of economics and health standards.
Jeez if there’s one lesson I’ve learned here: don’t confess to being vegetarian. You cop more abuse than coming out of the closet amongst the Festival of Light.
Shorter history of humanity: very early humans shown to have almost exclusively fruits, nuts and grains diet; after discovery of cooking, meat-eating was still extremely rare (you have to use valuable calories to chase it and kill it) and human bodies that could cope with very long periods WITHOUT meat were at an advantage; hunter-gatherer (for want of a better term) general health has been scientifically shown to be superior to the health of sedentary “civilised” populations – better teeth, far less disease, and so on. In brief: humans are biologically able to eat meat, and occasional meat meals can be of great advantage, but we are biologically able to go without it.
I would speak to someone from India for a different perspective on omnivorism.
However, it must be said that the general gist of commenters here can be summed up by the following: “Oyt moyt”.
“I can honestly say that the smell of meat and the thought of eating it turns my stomach”
I can’t help but wonder how long you have been a vegetarian for, RM — I can’t imagine that the military would’ve provided vegetarian meals to suit your vegan requirements, and the field ration packs that are issued don’t have much in the way of non-meat based meals in them either.
“hunter-gatherer (for want of a better term) general health has been scientifically shown to be superior to the health of sedentary “civilised” populations….”
I think you’ll find hunter-gatherer populations eat meat RM, hence the word “hunter” in their description.
“Shorter history of humanity: very early humans shown to have almost exclusively fruits, nuts and grains diet;”
I think you need to get your information from sources other than zealous vegan sites, RM.
“Jeez if there’s one lesson I’ve learned here: don’t confess to being vegetarian.”
Speaking strictly for myself, I reckon if you or anyone wish to be vegetarian then go for it, I have no issue at all — provided you don’t then try to force your choices on everyone else.
“Jeez if there’s one lesson I’ve learned here: don’t confess to being vegetarian. You cop more abuse than coming out of the closet amongst the Festival of Light.”
I see the persecution complex typical to vegans and vegetarians is alive and well.
I read back through the comments again to reassure myself that there’s no abuse of vegetarians, and there isn’t. There is, however, a hell of a lot of criticism of people who eat meat, either directly (“dumb belligerence”) or indirectly (“animals have to stand knee-deep in their own waste just so you can eat steak”).
“Shorter history of humanity: very early humans shown to have almost exclusively fruits, nuts and grains diet; ”
“Humans” were eating meat before they were even humans (ie: Homo Sapiens).
“after discovery of cooking, meat-eating was still extremely rare (you have to use valuable calories to chase it and kill it) [...]”
You get so many more calories out of meat and fat than plants, it’s more than worth the effort.
“[...] and human bodies that could cope with very long periods WITHOUT meat were at an advantage;”
In fact, it’s believed that meat-eating was one of the major factors behind evolving intelligence (and hence into modern Humans): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908
“hunter-gatherer (for want of a better term) general health has been scientifically shown to be superior to the health of sedentary “civilised” populations – better teeth, far less disease, and so on.”
You might want to consider what the “hunter” part of “hunter-gatherer” implies.
“In brief: humans are biologically able to eat meat, and occasional meat meals can be of great advantage, but we are biologically able to go without it.”
Not without very careful food selection and, typically, artificial or processed dietary supplements. Further, without the support of a modern society to give year-round access to a wider variety of foods, and/or aforementioned supplements, it’s damn near impossible.
“I would speak to someone from India for a different perspective on omnivorism.”
Which Indians are you thinking of who don’t eat animal products for any reason other than poverty or some sort of supply-side constriction ?
the persecution complex typical to vegans and vegetarians
Oh, I see – so this is just you stating a fact, not indulging a stereotype. I’m just imagining it all. Same with all the other stereotypical comments directed at me – “Just cop it, vegie boy!” I guess meat-eaters never try to impose their meat-eating views on others – “But you need meat!”; “Oh, eat it, it doesn’t have much meat!”; “I’ll just trickle some of this meat juice into his vegies, he’ll never notice” is NOT. THE. SAME. THING.
You know what, drsmithy et al – you’re right. You’re totally right. I and other vegetarians are daring to challenge the status quo only because we just don’t get it that meat-eating is the only way to go. We’re completely wrong. I could try to explain and refute but, you know – can’t lift my fingers, no energy, vegetarian, not enough calories … unnnghh ….
How interesting that the last sentence of your article states that: what makes us intellectually human is our brain … And I think that comes from having the highest quality of food in the animal kingdom, and that’s because we cook So it’s the cooking that is the biggie, according to that vegetarian researcher.
Tim Flannery also talks about his experiences in PNG where the tribe went absolutely nutcase coming back from a hunt. Flannery thought they had caught some huge animal based on the excitement, but it was just some pissant tiny creature. In those societies, he stated, it’s a long time between meat meals. And that’s from a book, not some whacko vegan site. Same as the other facts – I read books, not questionable websites with questionable information. And this research into hunter-gatherer (for want of a better term) societies is actually quite new – I think it’ll blow a lot of existing paradigms clear out of the water.
@ drsmithy
Not relevant to whether to eat meat or not, but relevant to whether eating kangaroos is a good idea when compared to eating farmed animals, which if I read it correctly was the theme of the article.
Specifically
the institutionalised animal abuse that underpins the commercial trade in kangaroo meat.
and
Unlike food animals which are “produced” on farms, such as cows and pigs, kangaroos are shot in the bush by people ranging from recreational to professional hunters, free of any oversight or scrutiny.
My position is that cruelty and lack of scrutiny is a feature of high density farming of livestock, and that free range roo/camel/cattle is better.
“Oh, I see – so this is just you stating a fact, not indulging a stereotype. I’m just imagining it all. Same with all the other stereotypical comments directed at me – “Just cop it, vegie boy!” I guess meat-eaters never try to impose their meat-eating views on others – “But you need meat!”; “Oh, eat it, it doesn’t have much meat!”; “I’ll just trickle some of this meat juice into his vegies, he’ll never notice” is NOT. THE. SAME. THING.”
Given how little any aspect of the discussion resembles your ranting, I think you’ve pretty much proven my point.
“Tim Flannery also talks about his experiences in PNG where the tribe went absolutely nutcase coming back from a hunt. Flannery thought they had caught some huge animal based on the excitement, but it was just some pissant tiny creature. In those societies, he stated, it’s a long time between meat meals. And that’s from a book, not some whacko vegan site.”
Perhaps if you think for a bit more about *why* they were so excited to catch some “pissant tiny creature”, you might have an epiphany.
“Same as the other facts – I read books, not questionable websites with questionable information. And this research into hunter-gatherer (for want of a better term) societies is actually quite new – I think it’ll blow a lot of existing paradigms clear out of the water.”
Please feel free to cite and reference said books.
“Specifically the institutionalised animal abuse that underpins the commercial trade in kangaroo meat.”
Since you fail to provide a link to the actual research, or provide any other evidence to support your assertions, it’s impossible for us to know whether this is actually true, or just more hyperbole (though the blatant conflict of interest would make it questionable even if you did). Note the article on this page does do these things, hence its much greater credibility.
“My position is that cruelty and lack of scrutiny is a feature of high density farming of livestock, and that free range roo/camel/cattle is better.”
Really ? Because you seem to be spending a lot of time saying we shouldn’t be farming “free range roo”.
Yawn. Looks like smithy has the attention span of a goldfish.
Take a step back and look at the BIIIIG picture of what we’re discussing!
As you were.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All