WHO WE ARE: The marsupial messiah

Wednesday May 9, 2007 04:08 PM

Who We Are

For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

A column by David Dale, published in The Sun-Herald, 10/09/2009
THERE'S every good reason for Australians to eat kangaroos (healthier than beef or lamb for both the consumer and the environment) and only one reason why we don't: The Skippy Complex. Half of this country's population is over the age of 37, which means that in their youth they were saturated with a TV series in which a superintelligent mammal regularly saved humans from death, deception and wrongful imprisonment. Some 10 million Australians are pathologically incapable of sinking their teeth into a creature they see as the dolphin of the land.

This misplaced sentimentality will be challenged when the ABC shows a documentary called Skippy, Australia's First Superstar. It reports that between 1967 and 1969, Fauna Productions made 91 episodes of a series that presented the kangaroo as the next best thing to Batman. Initially shown on Channel Nine on Monday nights, Skippy The Bush Kangaroo was repeated endlessly in Australia for the next 20 years and went on to be seen by 300 million people in 128 countries.

In the process it became a merchandising phenomenon, generating toys, pyjamas, icecreams, ashtrays, jewellery, soap, talcum powder, comics, jellybeans, rulers, pencils, puzzles, toothpaste, T-shirts, towels, soft drinks, moneyboxes and corn flakes. And a mythical view of marsupials.

The only Western nation which resisted the roo's relentless rollout was Sweden, which politely declined to show the series because it might give children "a misleading impression of an animal's abilities". What? Just because Skippy can make phone calls, open a safe, handle the controls of a helicopter, play the piano and the drums, and communicate at a level of sophistication rarely achieved by a 12 year old human being?

(Sample dialogue, after Skippy brings an engine part to ranger Tony Bonner ...
Skippy: Tchk tchk tchk.
Bonner: It's from Jim!
Skippy: Tchk tchk tchk.
Bonner: He's in trouble, his car's broken down, he can't get to the show! Is that it, Skip?
Skippy: Tchk tchk tchk.
Bonner: Come on, Skip, we haven't much time.)

In the documentary, various animal wranglers reveal that kangaroos are impossible to train, because they are "dumber than sheep". Their acting range is limited to sitting still, looking around and hopping away, so the producers filmed 14 different animals in the hope of capturing enough variety of movement to fit with script needs. Before any scene, the chosen roo was kept in a hessian bag, so that she (yes, Skippy was female) would emerge dazed and compliant for a couple of minutes before making her escape.

Skippy's astonishing dexterity was achieved by filming close-ups of paws on sticks manipulated by puppeteers. Skippy's vocalizations came from a human with a tongue in his cheek. The sounds were matched to mouth movements achieved by putting dry grass, chewing gum or a rubber band in the star's mouth.

This is not to suggest that the documentary (to be shown on ABC1 at 8.30pm on September 17) is a scathing expose. It's an affectionate look at Australia's first venture into international program-making, and at how Skippy paved the way for more versatile actresses such as Nicole Kidman, Toni Collette, Cate Blanchett and Rachel Griffiths. But it may serve as a reality check which allows a less romanticised view of an animal whose flavour far exceeds its intelligence.

Go to Comments to discuss why Australians sentimentalise their fauna.

To estimate the IQ of our politicians and personalities, go to The Tribal Mind.

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). For daily updates on Australian attitudes, bookmark blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

I have tried Kangaroo meat on several occasions and have found it to be most enjoyable at the time several other people dining with us found this appalling however they all opted for the steaks (cow),chicken or seafood,I don`t understand the difference.Anyone who has traveled this country will understand the abundance of kangaroos that are out there destroying our country and making life very difficult for the farmers. And yes I grew up loving skippy and would only eat skippy corn flakes. Perhaps we should all move on.

by Gary Ryan on September 06, 2009 at 07:34 PM

Kangaroo is really quite good, particularly if you like your meat on the rare side. Very high in protein and low in fat and are better global warming wise in that they emit little methane, particularly when compared to cattle. Meat is meat is meat. Developing an emotional attachment to an animal you've had nothing to do with or because it looks cute is just rediculous. Dog is actually quite decent also, though I'm not sure if it's even legal to eat in Aus. Worth giving a try (as long as it's a bred for the purpose).

by Drew on September 07, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Kangaroo is awesome to eat, especially with either sun-dried tomato or beetroot. Lean, healthy, good for the environment, we should all be eating more of it.

by Sed on September 07, 2009 at 02:34 AM

David Dale, do you know anything about the kangaroo killing industry? Most shooters are incapable of killing them first shot. They aim at the head, but they hit the jaw, the neck, or parts of the body. The animal is often not dead when it is hung up on a hook in the shooters' truck. It is often skinned alive. As for the joeys, those running alongside their mother may escape into the bush, where they will die of cold, hunger or predation. Otherwise they will be bludgeoned to death by the hunters. The small joey in the pouch also has its head bashed in.
The comment by Gary Ryan is just as ignorant: how are kangaroos destroying our country? They eat grass, so what? They belong here, they're native animals. Cows and sheep do far more damage just by walking around. Animals with hard hooves do not belong in Australia, why do you think we have so much erosion? Our land is too fragile. Kangaroos' big soft paws (macropods) are gentle on the earth.
Why don't you guys go and buy a book or something?

DD replies: So why don't we work on reforming the roo meat industry rather than reverting to destructive beef?

by jane hendy on September 07, 2009 at 02:38 AM

I've met a lot of people who are 'dumber then sheep'. Probably with a bit of seasoning they would also have a flavour that exceeded there intelligence - but only just. Re: Garys comments, kangaroos are not destroying the country - that would would be us mighty, apparently superior humans who are doing the great job of destroying the planet and all the other life forms that have the misfortune of sharing this planet with us. I will take sentimentality over short sightedness and greed any day.

by Kirsten on September 07, 2009 at 02:51 AM

There's another reason we don't eat Kangaroo. Go to your local Woolies and compare the per kilo price with steak. I can get a nice steak for $12 per kilo. Skippy goes for $19 per kilo. Delicious yes, and better for you and I've always had a perverse pleasure in eating something that people love but I'll stick to beef until the price gets more realistic.

by Androo on September 07, 2009 at 06:03 AM

i remember the old days of Skippy but it never influenced me enough to try roo, i eat it on a regular basis and LOVE it.
I cant understand how we can call ourselves the lucky country when half of the population hang on to this childish notion about Skippy or that the Roo is on our coat of arms.what if the two animals had been a cow and a sheep?these people would starve to death,come on get off the grass and eat roo its for everyones benefit

by hoova on September 07, 2009 at 06:05 AM

Loved Skippy, no matter how ridiculous. And will also eat roo, although I don't very often because it's a bit tricky to cook. I also ate wallaby once - that was even nicer. Haven't tried wombat, but I'm sure I won't be thinking of Fatso if it's ever on the menu!
And I saw Babe, but it didn't stop me eating bacon or ham.
And why is it that every time the subject of roo meat comes up, the same tired old polemic about the killings also arrives? Yes, kangaroos eat grass. There wouldn't be as much grass in Australia if it weren't for the sheep and cattle industries. As long as the animals we're eating aren't endangered, and aren't endangering even more of the ecology, what does it matter?

by Merri on September 07, 2009 at 07:04 AM

In Sydney kangeroo is cheap. At coles it's half the price of beef. Makes a great curry!!

by rusty on September 07, 2009 at 07:09 AM

Androo.. I think you'll find that Roo is FAR CHEAPER then beef. If you can get a good steak at $12 a kilo then either your definition of "good steak" is different to mine, or you buy in bulk.
Go to any supermarket and the "good steak", rib eye, scotch fillet, t-bone, will all be around the $25-$35 range, while roo is only $15.
My missus and I eat roo at least once a week. Its super tasty!

by phatmaniac on September 07, 2009 at 07:09 AM

I can't believe we still have this discussion. Kangaroo meat has been a staple of restaurants and home cooks for years, I don't get the issue. Jane, one of the issues with kangaroos (and yes, I agree that the industry is less clinical than farm animal slaughter) is that the change in the landscape over 200 years has led to a lot of overpopulation over the years and environmental damage. That's where Gary Ryan's comments come from.
DD's reply to your comment is extremely sensible. Here's a great resource, let's fix up the industry.

by Igomi Watabi on September 07, 2009 at 07:34 AM

I don�t agree that kangaroos are destroying the country. They are at times in plague numbers which impact farmer�s crops and farmer�s other livestock like cattle and sheep. But the reason we should eat kangaroo (other than the great taste and great quality), is that every time you do you remove the need for a farmer to raise another cow or sheep. Traditional livestock require large areas of land and need several times their body weight in feed before they are ready to eat.
I�m not suggesting to destroy the cattle industry, (because I love steak too much), just to reduce the burden on the grazing areas of Australia, to help reduce soil erosion and salinity levels etc. It�s a no brainer really.

by NFC on September 07, 2009 at 07:48 AM

Really glad to see this column - the only red meat we eat at home is kangaroo - it's tastier, much healthier (talk about free-range and organic!), much cheaper and of course better for the environment. Imagine if even 1/4 of the land that was cleared and planted with invasive grasses for pasture had been left alone for the roos to graze on and we ate them instead of beef - that would be the equivalent of most of our national parks saved from clearing! Why is it wrong to kill and eat an abundant native animal that lives off the natural systems, but ok to raise beef and sheep which destroy the natural environment, produce methane, and are cruelly treated for much of their lives??

by chapluqa on September 07, 2009 at 08:05 AM

I don't think kangaroos are overpopulated - their marsupial breeding mechanisms allow them to hold back gestation until the environment can support them. So their population at any stage - high or low - is a measurement of the current carrying capacity of the environment. Perhaps it is due to all the extra grass?
Another thing I have read is that they produce very little methane, unlike ruminants such as cattle. One argument that vegetarians give to support their stand is that meat production produces a lot of greenhouse gases - so 'roo meat breaks that argument.
Yes, it can be tricky to cook - so cook it quick and sharp and then rest it, or long and slow. But it's a source of good haem iron with a low fat content - very high quality meat. There isn't really any good reason to not consider eating roo, in principle.
The means of "farming" and "harvesting" are another issue entirely.

by termite on September 07, 2009 at 08:27 AM

I've tried roo meat both at home and in resturaunts. I don't like it. I don't like the way it smells raw, or while cooking. Then again I don't like beef either.

I think that those who abstain for animal cruelty reasons should be applauded; particularly if they only eat certified free range meat as well. I've heard friends not eat roo meat because of the inhumane way they are killed, but then tuck into a nice breast of cage chicken. At least the roo got to spend its life running around quite happily right up until the end.

Reform the meat industries. It's better for the animals, and as the price of meat inevitably rises (supply and demand) consumption will fall slowly, with the hopes of eventually leading to a more sustainable level of farming.

Better yet, if it is the environment that you really care about, go vegetarian.

by Anya on September 07, 2009 at 08:53 AM

People should be aware that the numbers of kangaroos were boosted mightily by the drilling of artesian bores throughout the interior. This meant water (meant for cattle) was available year round allowing the kangaroos to travel the country without running as great a risk of dying of thirst. The population would periodically crash in drought times but the bores reduced this risk. As a result there are more roos in the interior than ever. More roos = more pressure on the land. Not their fault but that's what happens.
And I love it, tastes great, got to know how to cook it though. Go to SA if you want really good roo in a restaurant, they've cooked it for years longer than NSW.

by Kanga Too on September 07, 2009 at 09:21 AM

ITs not farmed. Skippy is shot in a paddock somewhere and (pray) the shooter then bleeds the carcass. You then say a 2nd pray that your skippy steak is on the grill long enough to kill any parasites and any other micro bacterial organisms present in the meat. No one who has ever seen the way skippy is prepared for shrink-wrap would ever put it on the menu.
Skippy is shot freash for you! It makes great pet food.

by Paul on September 07, 2009 at 09:26 AM

Hmm, a divisive subject. As city born and bred I now live in a town closer to the country. Kangaroos don't destroy the country but they do impact the crops, and there certainly isn't a shortage of them. Having met roo shooters, the perception they shoot willy nilly is incorrect. Many consider the roos to be their livelihood so avoid shooting females with joeys as they are their income for the future. True there are occasions when they do, but these are far from the norm. They are also paid by weight so choose the larger males, but not the lead male. They are generally crack shooters and need to headshoot (instant death), as a shot to any other part of the body will not be accepted for purchase. Farmers are more likely to shoot inhumanely while protecting their crops. However, if we all went vegie, then the crops would be more valuable with more roos out there, so more likelihood of farmers protecting their crop, and if no more paid roo shooters less management of the shooting.
As for roo meat replacing beef and cattle, roos are nearly impossibly to contain and domesticate, have significantly less meat per animal and breed very slowly in comparison. There is no way farming roos would ever yield any sort of income for a farmer to survive on... especially when consumers want everything as cheaply as they can get.

by cj on September 07, 2009 at 09:43 AM

It was in one of Tim Flannery's books I think, that the point was made that brains require enormous amounts of energy to run - 20% of the energy we humans consume goes to operating ours - and among the adaptations of species like roos to a comparatively poor environment is a comparatively small brain. In other words, they are dumber than a sheep in order to survive and prosper where sheep cannot.
Skippy was on when I was a kid, but I could never take it seriously. It bore no relationship to the reality that I knew.
As others have said, eating roo makes perfect sense: they are free of any hormones, growth promoters etc, and exceptionally low in fat. They do far less harm to the environment than cattle or sheep, and the species taken for meat exist in vast numbers, cope well with our cycles or drought and plenty, and reproduce quickly. Their harvesting is humane too, despite the ill-informed claims of naysayers, and they live wild and free until killed instantly by a well-placed bullet, rather than spending life in a pen, and being trucked away to line up awaiting death in a slaughterhouse.
I like mine seared, with a Cumberland sauce and perhaps some mashed kumera. It makes good curry too. Yum!

by Dan on September 07, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Some of these are such city comments. I wonder if some bloggers have ever gone south past Tom Ugly's Bridge, or west of the latte set at Balmain.
No-one seems to have mentioned a major problem with kangaroos down here in the sticks. Their impact isn't just on the environment, it can sometimes be on the car bonnet. Mr Skerrick collected a rather sizable one nearly 2 years ago with our family in the car. $8000 damage, and damn lucky it didn't go through the windscreen and cause human damage.
In parts where I used to live there were dead roos regularlystrewn along major roads. It's green and lush here on the coast, so their "marsupial breeding mechanism" goes into overdrive, and as an early morning/late night traveller on occasions, Mr Skerrick and I have had numerous near misses, which was in part reason for our move last year from a coastal village back to a regional centre.
I don't see cows or sheep launching themselves regularly and unpredictably at cars. Too big and slow. I'd like to see the statistics of accidents caused by hitting a roo (or being hit by a roo) as opposed to someone hitting a sheep.

by Bereft Skerrick on September 07, 2009 at 12:42 PM

An excess of kangaroo's are the cause of many road deaths and injuries on our highways as drivers try to avoid them.
They need to be culled ,so eating them is common sense and avoids the waste of a great meat and one of the best leathers available.

by Leslie on September 07, 2009 at 12:42 PM

The first time I tried roo it was over cooked hard as boot leather and quite average in taste. Since then I have had roo cooked properly and I must say I rate far above the farmed meats. Roo cooked right is soft and flavorsome. Both my wife and I eat roo regularly as do most of our friends. Roo is readily available and cheap, there is no where near the environmental impact as say beef, pork or lamb farming and best of all free range organic roo is far healthier than chemically grown/enhanced farmed meats.

by Sol Rosenberg on September 07, 2009 at 01:02 PM

Igomi Watabi, what proof do you have that there is an overpopulation of kangaroos? Because the farmers say so? You believe everything everyone tells you? Read some of the reports published by animal welfare organisations, among others. (Try googling Kangaroo Massacre, for example). As for environmental damage, again, how can a native animal commit environmental damage? Kangaroos have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, they belong in Australia. Cows don't. As for there being more grass now: the Aboriginal people regularly did controlled burns of the bush to encourage grassland so there would be more kangaroos. And that is before the arrival of the British.
For the person who said hunters are all crack shots and kill humanely, have you actually been on a kangaroo hunt? The only way to kill a kangaroo cleanly is to shoot it between the eyes. How many people manage to do this? Mostly the animal is incapacitated by a shot to the neck or jaw and is often hung up alive. As for sparing females with joeys, there are official guidelines for killing the babies, and absolutely no prohibition.
And yes, I am a vegetarian and no, I don't crave steaks of any kind. I feel so sorry for all you carcass dependant people.

by Jane Hendy on September 07, 2009 at 03:04 PM

I'm a regular roo eater. The meat when cooked well is tasty and lean. And it is much cheaper than beef.

My husband goes roo shooting - culling on a sheep farm - try telling the farmers that there isn't a problem with over population of roos. Oh - he also shoots feral deer too ... mmmm tasty bambi.

by Nic on September 07, 2009 at 05:01 PM

the 'voice' of skippy "Tchk tchk tchk" was a wonderful guy - Mr Greg Bell - a somewhat 'unsung' hero in the Aust Film sound scene - sweet sweet bloke RIP
[btw -I love this thing you you do Mr Dale.. it is what [helps us] understand who we are
I'm x LA for some decades now]

by Cameron Allan on September 07, 2009 at 06:58 PM

In reply to DD's comment on my first comment: Australians, and in fact the whole world, have to start looking at things completely differently. The roo industry could be reformed, but how? How are you going to stop acts of gratuitous cruelty by kangaroo shooters, when we can read comments like this by Merri:
"And why is it that every time the subject of roo meat comes up, the same tired old polemic about the killings also arrives? (...) As long as the animals we're eating aren't endangered, and aren't endangering even more of the ecology, what does it matter?"
What does gratuitous suffering matter? Quite a lot, I think.
As for the other person who talked about kangaroos' low intelligence, go and watch Faces in the Mob, a brilliant film about a mob of kangaroos, clever and not so smart. Just like us really.
As for "destructive beef": It's no secret that hard-hoofed animals cause erosion; so do inappropriate farming practices. Instead of sympathising with the farmers, we should recognize them for what they are: Backward-looking, ultra conservative, reluctant to change, insensitive to the sufferings of the animals they make their money out of, and always looking for more government hand-outs to compensate for their stupidity.
Some background reading:
http://www.voiceless.org.au/The_Issues/Fact_Sheets/kangaroos.html

by Jane Hendy on September 07, 2009 at 07:27 PM

Hi all
Jane is making sense. If you're still not sure, take a peak at the DOCUMENTARY (=typical real life shootings) kangaroo killing scenes in Aussie cinema classic "Wake in Fright" (re-released this year nation wide), and have a long hard think before tucking in to your "Skippy steak".
I found these interesting links:
http://www.sponsoroo.com/
http://www.voiceless.org.au/component/option,com_vpoll2009/

by Tom Harrison on September 07, 2009 at 07:29 PM

Jane Hendy: I ask you, have YOU ever been on a Kangaroo Cull? Or is your information from what you've read from anti-cull campaigners.
Have you ever gone bush and spoken to farmers who have overpopulations of 'roos on their farms? You googled your information right? And everything you read on the Interweb is accurate of course, or just propagandist (in both directions to be fair) to support a cause.
And your claim that native animals cannot cause environmental damage? What do beavers do? Native to North America, they chop down trees and create dams. There's environmental damage for you, in many places they're considered a pest, just as kangaroos are. Something for you to goggle whilst you sip your soy latte and look down from your ivory tower.
And have you ever tried to return to your home on the coast at 3am along Forest Rod in the direction of Currarong, and out of the darkness had a 'roo jump alongside of you, then suddenly change direction before you're able to take any evasive action. Smash into your car and leave you stranded.
There is a need in certain cases for the kangaroo population to be reduced. It's just sad that with your "ooh look at me I'm a vegetarian aren't I better than you" attitude that you feel you need to look down your nose as those that aren't. I respect your choice to eat what you like, but please respect others who choose differently.
And not that it matters, I don't believe in eating Kangaroo, but I respect the choice of others to do so.

by Bereft Skerrick on September 07, 2009 at 08:51 PM

"Cull" is such a nice euphemism, isn't it? When you choose the word "cull" you don't want people to think of fear and death and pain. You want them to get the impression that some god-figure has ordained that the kangaroo population should be reduced, and as if by magic, it is. Cleanly, no botched head shots, no joeys ripped from the pouch, no suffering at all. The animals just disappear.
Bravo.
Funny isn't it that the British are desperately hoping to re-introduce beavers in their crowded waterways. I wonder why? You must know something that they don't.....
Driving along a country road at 3am is just, well, not the smartest thing you can do. People who've kind of thought things through tend not to drive in the bush at night. Animals can't read road signs you know.
I only mentioned I'm a veggie to avoid giving people the wrong idea: like, you eat chickens sheep and cows don't you, so why complain about shooting roos? Why should you feel you're being looked down on? You have a chip on your shoulder or sumfink?
And I have never drunk a soy latte in my life. I live in a place where such things are unobtainable.

by Jane Hendy on September 08, 2009 at 07:31 PM

You guys should all go give this guy some support people have been bashing him for eating roo...
http://yovia.com/blogs/naturalingredients/

by David on September 09, 2009 at 04:27 AM

Hmmm. Why should we feel like we're being looked down on, after gutter comments like this. Quoth Jane: "People who've kind of thought things through tend not to drive in the bush at night." Wow what an asinine comment. Are you suggesting that those who don't live in the city have a curfew at dusk? Roos do tend to come out at dusk. But No! Jane commands that off the road you must stay! Fool.
There are many people who have to work their backsides off in many professions have to drive in the bush at night. Some people have no choice. Ambulance drivers. Bus drivers. Sales representatives. My hard working husband when he gets called to a midnight job and has to drive home in the wee hours. Are you suggesting that all of these people are mentally incompetent or inferior to you? Fact of life. People have to drive at night whether you like it or not.
And there's also this little thing called winter, where the daylight hours are shorter. Have you heard of it? People where I work don't always live 5 mins away, and come 5pm it's dark. We don't have street lights or public transport.
You failed to answer my other questions. Have you actually been there when the roos are killed, or are you just quoting propaganda. Have you ever spoken to a farmer, or are you just too pigheaded to see that there may be another side.
I was polite suggesting you were in an ivory tower. Perhaps I was wrong, and suggest you would have a clearer view if you removed your head from the orifice where it's located.

by Bereft Skerrick on September 09, 2009 at 09:27 AM

Jane... I added the comments about roo shooters... yep been out shooting with them (not qualified to comment on the experience if I hadn't been). The roo MUST be headshot or it will NOT be accepted at the box... therefore loss of income. The roo will NEVER be hung up alive because (let's get technical) they are gutted in the paddock, and they can't be skinned alive because they are gutted first. Not much chance of gutting or skinning if an animal is alive and kicking... I'm not endorsing the lifestyle by any means, but let's get the facts right... Rooshooters are not the offenders...They take their job and means of income very seriously. On the other hand mass culling, and farmers are less likely to be humane, as well as recreational shooters.. but they don't produce meat for the commercial roo industry.
Suffice to say if you choose to not eat meat that's great, and if you do then if knowing, and endorsing, the method it gets to you is important that's great too... just think about researching all the facts before commenting... and not completely believing everything you read.

by cj on September 09, 2009 at 09:47 AM

Reference: Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Kangaroos (1988) [8.2] Cruelty to Kangaroos. Further, one of the six members of the Committee published a minority report in which he concluded, �For the welfare of the kangaroos, the industry should be closed�. The welfare of the kangaroo, our national animal, must be placed ahead of commercial interests and inept bureaucrats. The present slaughter must cease.� (Senator Norm Sanders, pp 199�203.)
David Nicholls, �The Kangaroo � Falsely Maligned by Tradition� in Maryland Wilson and David B Croft (eds), Kangaroos - Myths and Realities (2005) 33, 38:
A vivid picture of the types of injuries that occur is painted by the words of a former commercial kangaroo shooter: �The mouth of a kangaroo can be blown off and the kangaroo can escape to die of shock and starvation. Forearms can be blown off, as can ears, eyes and noses. Stomachs can be hit expelling the contents with the kangaroo still alive. Backbones can be pulverized to an unrecognizable state etc. Hind legs can be shattered with the kangaroo desperately trying to get away on the other or without the use of either. To deny that this goes on is just an exercise in attempting to fool the public.�
For an up-to-date report on the kangaroo killing industry:
http://www.voiceless.org.au/images/stories/grants/A_Shot_in_the_Dark_final_report_April_2009.pdf

by Jane Hendy on September 09, 2009 at 01:34 PM

Quoth Ms Skerrick: "You failed to answer my other questions."
And she never will, you know. I've gone up against the Jane Hendys of this world before, and they don't see what they don't want to see. In this case, your question.

by tqd on September 10, 2009 at 02:16 PM

So I've read all your comments people.
Jane Hendy is the one who makes most sense.
I live in Sydney now but I am country born & bred. I would never eat kangaroo, both because of the cruelty in killing them and because I see no need to do so. There is plenty of food available to us without killing any native animals.
Leslie said: "An excess of kangaroo's are the cause of many road deaths and injuries on our highways as drivers try to avoid them."
So what. Last time I looked there was one animal population breeding out of control. Go look in a mirror to see which species it is. And we cause most car accidents.
Bereft, I am very sorry about your car accident and the cost. But sorry, that's no reason to kill kangaroos. Drive slower, take more care, be aware.
A kid on a bicycle crashed into my stationary car, doing quite a bit of damage. Hmm, should I have eaten him?

by Sal on September 10, 2009 at 03:26 PM

Sal: I promise, next split second when my husband is driving along a country road at 8:30 at night when it is dark and stormy, doing 70 in a 100km/h zone (driving to the conditions), and without warning a massive spooked roo jumps over a fence to cross the road, I'll ask Mr Skerrick to take split second evasive action by plowing into the car coming in the opposite direction, doing whatever possible to avoid the roo and injure, maim or kill himself and whoever is in the car with him.
OK that's ridiculous. But it was unavoidable. I'm sad the roo died, I even called NANA (our version of WIRES) to come and assist the injured roo, and to confirm whether there was a helpless joey. But I never suggested that people hitting roos with cars was a reason to cull them. People or roos.
I don't like the fact that the farmers appear to be put in the position where it is required (and I certainly hope it is done humanely), but there is always two sides to the story.
But as tqd rightly said, opposing sides don't see what they don't want to see.

by Bereft Skerrick on September 10, 2009 at 04:08 PM

"Quoth"?????
Could Bereft and tqd be one and the same person?
Just a thought.
Hi cj: You wrote: "yep been out shooting with them (not qualified to comment on the experience if I hadn't been)." Does this mean you are a Holocaust denier, as you probably weren't a prisoner in Auschwitz? Does this also mean you aren't qualified to say who is the president of the USA if you weren't at his inauguration ceremony?
Of course not, you saw it on the tv, you read about it in the newspapers. For the Holocaust, you probably learned about it in school. Or maybe you don't believe anything you were taught, without witnessing it first hand.......
You make your life difficult.
"The roo MUST be headshot or it will NOT be accepted at the box..."
Sure, I agree on this one. Which explains the body-wounded animals who are left to die a lingering death because they have no economic value.
I have a question for you: have you checked out any of the references I have posted on this blog? You might start by checking out the report "A shot in the dark". Or what about the film Wake in Fright with its documentary footage of a kangaroo hunt, recommended by another poster to this blog?
Thanks for staying polite.

by Jane Hendy on September 11, 2009 at 02:13 AM

For what it's worth Bereft Skerrick and Jane Hendy, I agree with both of you (diplomatic or dull?), but I'm afraid if we're keeping score, Jane has lost because she just referenced The Nazis. Automatic disqualification.

by darren on September 11, 2009 at 06:27 AM

I see both sides of the argument very clearly. I love animals but have lived in the country so know all the problems as well. I also agree with Mia Freedman this week as I dabble in vegetarianism from time to time and I really, really can't fathom the anger that causes in some meat eaters. I have had people practically yell at me when I've said I am staying away from meat for awhile. Yet I've never had a vegetarian yell at me for the opposite view. Very strange. I wonder why meat eaters get so mad/defensive? I couldn't care less what people eat. Mine is a personal choice.

by em on September 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Hee darren, it's called "Godwin's Law" and it states that the longer a discussion goes on the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
It shows that sensible discussion is over and usually the cry of "Godwin's Law" means the discussion should cease because it is offically going nowhere.

by genfie on September 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Nazis aside, having also grown up in The Country, I remember the fear and stress of driving anytime between say, 5pm and 5am and expecting a collision at any moment. They do jump out suddenly and stupidly and it doesn't matter how cautiously or slowly you go, roadkill and car damage is unavoidable. Also familiar with people moving from city to country and adopting mobs as pets and feeding them and having their small children mauled by them and generally asking for trouble.
The ABC doco previously mentioned ('Faces in the Mob'), could be seen as highlighting the fact that they have a social structure and many cute and cuddly characteristics or maybe just to highlight that they're interesting animals but to say they're almost like us is to draw a long illogical bow and illustrates presicely the point Mr Dale was making in the first place: That Aussies sentimentalise their cuddly National Emblem to their and our detriment.
It makes complete sense that kangaroos should be farmed and eaten in Australia instead of sheep and cattle. The land itself and the environment in general would thank us. If they are to be farmed, they should be killed in the same humane manner (if you can sufficiently delude yourself to believe that cattle and sheep are). If the slaughter of sheep and cattle (and lambs and calves and wabbits and chookies) was as closely scrutinised as the slaughter of kangaroos, there would be little difference to be seen. Killing animals is always cruel and gruesome. It's killing.
The thing is, there are too many kangaroos in many areas and we've contributed to the imbalance with our agriculture and roads with grassy verges and wet-behind-the-ears sentimentalism so it's up to us to manage the situation and be sensible about it. And humane. And stop atributing human characteristics on animals. You can be compassionate and considerate of their welfare without turning them into cartoons. If you saw the doco on the ABC last night 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed' you'd agree that treating animals like humans doesn't preclude the treating of them like possesions. Never ceases to amaze me how proponents for one cause or another can be complete hypocrites when it comes to what they allow themselves to get away with.

by darren on September 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM

"Quoth" is a perfectly cromulent word, anyone's entitled to use it. No need for conspiracy theories.

by tqd on September 11, 2009 at 01:19 PM

"The ABC doco previously mentioned ('Faces in the Mob'), could be seen as highlighting the fact that they have a social structure": Spot on, Darren. Increasingly, the fact that non-human animals have their own culture is being acknowledged. Culture implies, among other things, anything that is learned and handed on to the next generation, or that is unique to a certain social group. Basically, Faces in the Mob is a story of two female kangaroos and their learned and inherited mothering techniques. The one supported by her own mother and family successfully reared her joeys. The other, socially isolated, didn't have a clue and her babies all died young. Sound familiar? It is absolutely not illogical to say they are just like us in many ways. If you want to persecute another group of humans you could start off by calling them dirty and stupid and then go on to regard them as sub-human. If you want to massacre a group of non-humans you call them stupid pests. David Dale's original premise, that the only reason we don't eat kangaroos is because we are sentimental about them, is I think tongue in cheek. If it isn't, it could explain something about Aussie journalism.
There is just another question which noone has mentioned, and that is the hygiene factor of kangaroo meat. Apart from the fact that most carcasses are crawling with nemotode worms, there is faecal and other contamination due to the methods of slaughter and the distance from the place of slaughter to the chiller, which itself is a microbial paradise. For more info read "A Shot in the Dark" or any RSPCA report. And then, go veg.
If you still think kangaroo hunting is a worthwhile occupation, have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcMkNYOBvW8

by Jane Hendy on September 11, 2009 at 02:03 PM

Jane, please, give it a bone! Humans are omnivores at the top of the food chain. Herbivores exist to be eaten by us. End of story.

by Not my real name on September 11, 2009 at 03:54 PM

"Herbivores exist to be eaten by us."
In case you hadn't noticed, we left the Cro-Magnon era about 30,000 years ago. If you follow through with your idea, the Amazon forest exists to be cut down so that soy beans can be planted to feed the herbivores that exist to be eaten by you. The continent of Australia exists to be turned into a dustbowl by cloven-hoofed herbivores brought there to be eaten by you. The earth exists to be polluted, over-heated and ultimately destroyed by you. You are so important.

by Jane Hendy on September 12, 2009 at 10:06 AM

I certainly dont have an attachment for roo, but for me the reason I wont even try it, is the fact that it has to be served bleeding and still hopping on the plate. I like my meat cooked - you can not beat a nice char grilled rump or leg of goat and I for one just refuse to eat, (and have sent back to the restaurant kitchen on more than one occasion) meat that is still bleeding. I can not see the attraction in under cooked meat of any persuasion. Barely cooked chicken or pork is just asking for trouble.

by ozinoz on September 17, 2009 at 09:39 AM

The Sun-Herald

Who We Are

WHO WE ARE: The marsupial messiah

COMMENTS

POST A COMMENT

Comments Terms & Conditions

RECENT ENTRIES

ARCHIVES