Loggers are the ultimate conservationists now, according to Our Prime Minster.
sigh.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Providing some regulation and incentive for loggers to harvest trees in a manner that still conserves forests (in addition to planting trees to replace the ones harvested) has actually helped in the U.S. For one thing, some areas are no longer affected by wild, miles-long uncontrollable forest fires that resulted from ill-thought-out-but-good-intentioned efforts to prevent forest fires and any form of brush build up control. Thus, the resulting stories about entire sections of states burning you sometimes see on the news.
As it turns out, conservation doesn't always mean "prevent any man-caused changes to it at all or any form of destruction to it." Sometimes it requires you to work to make changes... and sometimes conserving a forest requires cutting down trees within it on a regular basis. Thus, why logging companies can help.
One of the main problems I have with a lot of modern talk about conservation is most people have no idea what conservation actually is. Especially when it comes to forests and animals.
I had a big rant on this, but sighed and deleted it. Pretty much... look up the Endangered Species List and how much of a threat it has become to the species put on it. Look up the research about fish evolving to be smaller. Look up the news stories about seals being weaned earlier. All of those are side-effects of our conservation efforts and the massive, massive problems those efforts are creating. They were all efforts made with good intentions... but we all know what road good intentions pave.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abbott is a total bell end....
Massive environmental differences between the US and Oz. It's a bad thing if you don't have fires because the next year the fires are 10 times worse... Loggers have no interest in back burning as it hurts thier bottom line.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Massive environmental differences between the US and Oz. It's a bad thing if you don't have fires because the next year the fires are 10 times worse... Loggers have no interest in back burning as it hurts thier bottom line.
Everything I've found on the Australia wildfires matches up to the U.S. wildfires on the lack of smaller fires causing bigger fires; both seem, from what I have read, to be linked to the same cause.
The U.S. found a solution that doesn't involve burning. Even with the environmental differences, the fact you have loggers at all suggests a potential possibility that the same solution can be applied to Australia as well. With some modification to account for the differences.
However, this is based on an incomplete knowledge of Australia's environment. I tend to avoid places that are inherently hostile to human life, such as New Jersey, or places where everything is trying to kill you, such as New Jersey or Australia :P
Snork I've survived both Jersey and Oz.
Which parts of the US and Oz are you referring to, specifically? In Cali, for instance, there are several species of plants which depend on regular fires for both reproduction and health maintenance. The thing is, humans don't generally see (or think) in the time scales involved, and we're only just now getting to the issues of what happens when there are no fires to clear out dead and unhealthy individuals. In our neighborhood, there's a massive epidemic of mistletoe underway, and in 10 to 15 years, we're going to lose most of our Oregon and white oaks. That will result in overgrowth of coyote bush, which is incredibly flammable, along with non-native species such as gorse (introduced from Europe) and monkeybush, and, of course, everybody's favorite, poison oak. Loss of the root systems of large trees will also leave the ground open to erosion, especially during the rainy season, which will in turn cause mudslides. I actually wish there was some safe way to backburn the area around our house, but we're stuck with (laboriously) clearing out the brush and (expensively) having the mistletoe cut out of the trees. *Sigh*
The thing is the niche occupied by wide open spaces that used to be provided by fire have been pretty well filled by farm fields and lawns. There's not a heck of a lot of the old growth forest left, and its not functionally a renewable resource. Letting it burn on occasion is fine but it seems like we CAN"T put a road into an area without it quickly being logged. Some of it at least needs to be left the heck alone for a while.
Massive environmental differences between the US and Oz. It's a bad thing if you don't have fires because the next year the fires are 10 times worse... Loggers have no interest in back burning as it hurts thier bottom line.Everything I've found on the Australia wildfires matches up to the U.S. wildfires on the lack of smaller fires causing bigger fires; both seem, from what I have read, to be linked to the same cause.
The U.S. found a solution that doesn't involve burning. Even with the environmental differences, the fact you have loggers at all suggests a potential possibility that the same solution can be applied to Australia as well. With some modification to account for the differences.
However, this is based on an incomplete knowledge of Australia's environment. I tend to avoid places that are inherently hostile to human life, such as New Jersey, or places where everything is trying to kill you, such as New Jersey or Australia :P
Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
|
Massive environmental differences between the US and Oz. It's a bad thing if you don't have fires because the next year the fires are 10 times worse... Loggers have no interest in back burning as it hurts thier bottom line.Everything I've found on the Australia wildfires matches up to the U.S. wildfires on the lack of smaller fires causing bigger fires; both seem, from what I have read, to be linked to the same cause.
The U.S. found a solution that doesn't involve burning. Even with the environmental differences, the fact you have loggers at all suggests a potential possibility that the same solution can be applied to Australia as well. With some modification to account for the differences.
However, this is based on an incomplete knowledge of Australia's environment. I tend to avoid places that are inherently hostile to human life, such as New Jersey, or places where everything is trying to kill you, such as New Jersey or Australia :P
Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
Not entirely true, fire is indeed part of the growth cycle here too. I have heard that some (pine species i believe) require fire to reproduce as well, as well as changing the dynamics of shade and sun to allow some species to grow.
All in all loggers MIGHT be more interested in healthier forests than many enviro types, much as most hunters care more for healthy game than animal rights wackos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loggers can help a lot if the incentives and regulations are used properly.
Here in Chile, for instance, where about 1/4 of the country is covered in cold, evergreen, millennial forests and with a very important wood industry, an extensive campaign between the State, NGOs and the logging industry has allowed not only for de-forestation to come to a stop, but in fact the forests have been growing back; native woodlands have expanded more than 500,000 hectares (about 1.2 million acres) in the last 3 years.
It took a long time and a bucketload of work, but finally we're at a point were about 90% of the forests are completely protected by wildlife reserves and the logging industry managed to create big enough tree farms that it can stay viable without touching the remaining 10% that's not protected.
But you still need State oversight and a well-organized industry for such a thing to work, because even if the large loggers are all in with the forest recovery (and, gladly enough, they have been), you still run the risk of the smaller ones or the newcomers to go their own way without some proper guidance and regulation.
Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air....
Way 5,397 that Australia is designed to torture and kill humans. :)
Chuck Norris has nothing on the toughness of Australians.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be worse, Tiring of Green Peace's anti-whaling activities, French agents actually blew up, and sank the original GreenPeace ship Rainbow Warrior, killing one Greenpeace member who was aboard.
Green Peace were protesting the French testing nukes in the pacific. They blew up the Rainbow Warrior and murdered a man to stop them from sailing into the exclusion zone.
The two agents that were caught were released because the French threatened to ruin New Zealand economically.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
Holy crap. In Australia, even the TREES will kill you. Not to mention, all those forests are full of poisonous, sharp-toothed fauna....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
terrorists get hit eventually
Unless they win, then you get off on their birthday.
Besides the fact that you don't agree with them, can you tell me any actual difference between the green peace folks and the boston tea party?
|
|
Holy crap. In Australia, even the TREES will kill you. Not to mention, all those forests are full of poisonous, sharp-toothed fauna....Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
Actually I did some agricultural experiments back when the world was full of wonder, I discovered that yeast in the germination media will attack the protien coat on fire activated seeds triggering germination. I suspect the lack of yeasts in the Australian soils is the reason it now relies on fire.
Holy crap. In Australia, even the TREES will kill you. Not to mention, all those forests are full of poisonous, sharp-toothed fauna....Australia's Forrest's are primarily Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are filled with a flammable oil, they burn fast, often explode into flame. In the summer you can see a blue haze over the forest, that is the oil permeating the air like gasoline vapour.
Lightning strikes start most fires in old growth forests. If you don't have a fire you don't clear the leaf litter made up of oil rich eucalypts leaves.
A lot Eucalypts can not reproduce without fire, while California's climate is similar it's forests aren't evolved to burn.
Eucalyptus are prone to shedding large, heavy branches from the main trunk earning them the name 'Widow Makers'.
It's a given that if you live near the bush your house will either be threatened by fire, catch on fire or burn down several times during your life. People who build near the bush and are surprised by that fact are considered idiots.
People should also note that Australia is a continent being such a large landmass it's always a good bet that there is a natural distaster happening somewhere. A few years ago we had multiple disasters happening at once. An area the size of Germany was flooded and an area the size of Belgium was on fire.
Not including Antarctica, Australia is the continent with the smallest population - less people than New York City. That population is smeared around the edge of the continent - think Halifax to Miami.. That means that there are very few people in the areas that are being flooded, drought ridden, on fire or suffering animal plagues if biblical proportions.
It is very hard for us to get resources from one end to the other to deal with the disasters but after 200 years of getting used to what happens here non native Australians are starting to manage things better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
terrorists get hit eventuallyUnless they win, then you get off on their birthday.
Besides the fact that you don't agree with them, can you tell me any actual difference between the green peace folks and the boston tea party?
Well lets see the boston tea party was the begining of a revolt to overturn the rule of a distant king to allow the local people to choose their own lives and have a representative government. Green peace is using at the very least psuedo terrorist tactics to tell other people around the world how THEY have to live to be aligned to the proper GP philosophy to avoid further problems. So yeah, we want to live free as we choose to VS you willl live how we tell you to are VERY different indeed
|
|
Some fact correction here. Despite discontent about English taxation policies, when the Revolution was announced it was still very much a minority position among the American colonists, the majority of whom still wanted to remain British subjects. Most of the move from revolution came from the relatively well off landed minority who used their connections to build up a movement.Well lets see the boston tea party was the begining of a revolt to overturn the rule of a distant king to allow the local people to choose their own lives and have a representative government. Green peace is using at the very least psuedo terrorist tactics to tell other people around the world how THEY have to live to be aligned to the proper GP philosophy to avoid further problems. So yeah, we want to live free as we choose to VS you willl live how we tell you to are VERY different indeedterrorists get hit eventuallyUnless they win, then you get off on their birthday.
Besides the fact that you don't agree with them, can you tell me any actual difference between the green peace folks and the boston tea party?
Wich would be relevant if the "minority revolutionaries" would have conquered the others and forced them instead of gaining support and becoming the majority. The fact remains that the revolution was based on a desire to rule themselves and be no man's subject
....aaand farewell to the environment as this thread degenerates into second-guessing the sociopolitical motivations of people who have been dead for a couple of centuries. Guys, at the very least, you are trying to compare apples to 12-ton lumps of granite.
Well lets see the boston tea party was the begining of a revolt to overturn the rule of a distant king
At that point it was a protest against the economic policies that allowed the dutch east india company to import tea CHEAPER than anyone else could, not a revolution. It was exactly like the occupy wallstreet protestors that you deride so much.
to allow the local people to choose their own lives and have a representative government.
England was a representative government, through parliament. Benjamen Franklin and a host of other founding fathers made a livign representing the states in england.
What it wasn't was direct representation, which has its ups and downs.
Green peace is using at the very least psuedo terrorist tactics to tell other people around the world how THEY have to live to be aligned to the proper GP philosophy to avoid further problems.[/quote
Of course they are. They think that whales are sentient enough to not be callously killed for moronic reasons. They see whale as/close to people, just like some people saw blacks as some/close to people and some didn't.
So yeah, we want to live free as we choose to VS you willl live how we tell you to are VERY different indeedYou also want to impose that way on another living being, which they consider a person and you don't.
Meh - speech is low grade pandering... especially since it is being given to the 'Australian Forest Products Association'.
He also said 'I promised my great friend that I was not going to make a party political speech tonight'... after spending a few minutes sandbagging the greens.
Greenpeace is a disgusting, antidemocratic, fanatic movement with a very firm power agenda, that uses EVERY possible tactic they can to get there. This includes things like sinking their own boats to blame others for using violence, perpetrating revolting acts on defenseless animals so they can be filmed and used to smear others, and so on and so forth ad nauseam. Best of all, they are the ones pulling the strings in IPCC, enforcing political pseudoscience without fact-checking as a means to affluence and power. Blech.
Greenpeace is a disgusting, antidemocratic, fanatic movement with a very firm power agenda
Could you explain that last part... at all?
perpetrating revolting acts on defenseless animals so they can be filmed and used to smear others
Citation?
Greenpeace is a disgusting, antidemocratic, fanatic movement with a very firm power agendaCould you explain that last part... at all?
perpetrating revolting acts on defenseless animals so they can be filmed and used to smear othersCitation?
Well, take a look yourself. Check what people make up the IPCC, and where they are also engaged/have been engaged. Greenpeace and WWF are doing VERY well for themselves these days.
As for the citation, it's an old story. I was ten or so. I saw a documentary about violence against kangaroos, presented as a "we found this movie that the criminals have filmed, see how terribly people treat animals". It showed horrible stuff, I mainly remember people bending its tail sharply and cutting it, and cutting open its pouch. This went out as a rallying call against brutality to wild animals, and since it came to Sweden, it must have had quite a bit of circulation.
I was so angry I didn't know what to do with myself. People should NEVER treat animals that way. I had nightmares about it for weeks. I wanted to help Greenpeace fight these horrible bastards, though admittedly, I didn't have much support to give them.
Then it turns out that one of the Greenpeace activists who was actually on the nighttime kangaroo torture raid couldn't keep his mouth shut about it. It had been a Greenpeace operation to gather support worldwide, ordered from above. The newspapers took this story and spread it, again, even to little Sweden. This event kind of defined my relationship with Greenpeace ever since.
I am not sure where you'd find it today, but I guess there are still old newspaper archives to look through.
EDIT: I guess with age I have come to understand what they did in some way. I have no doubt evil moron people do torture wild animals, nor that it happens all the time. A movie about it, if it could prevent some part of it, could, I guess, be seen as "worth it". The only problem is that you become evil moron people for doing it, and if it would ever leak that you were to blame, you might end up with lots of people seeing you as evil moron people - that could alienate people forever... yeah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, after looking through things, it appears that the movie was Goodbye to Joey, released in 1986, and that a Brisbane court fined the two evil moron persons hired by Greenpeace to mutilate a kangaroo to gether support against kangaroo products. You want that citation, you have somewhere to look. I also found that the iconic whale clubber who flayed a living seal and started the massive resistance to seal clubbing, was also paid by Greenpeace to do that job. Common sense, really... who the f@$@ would flay a LIVING seal when a dead one won't move while you do it?
No, I don't want anything to do with evil moron people. Greenpeace's services have NEVER been needed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, take a look yourself.
You cannot simply assume that everyone but you that doesn't agree with you is an ignoramus. You cannot simply assume that everyone has the same information that you do, or even believes the same information you do. I can make any claim i want about any one i want and then just hand wave a "look at it for yourself, you'll see that Obama really is a muslim atheist weak willed dicatator lizardman! " It doesn't help when the "proof" is...
"Greenpeace and WWF are doing VERY well for themselves these days. "
Yes. Holy cow. Surprise! Environmentalism is freaking expensive. Oddly enough when you ask starving people to pretty please not shoot the elephants for that very expensive ivory that they're made out of it tends not to work. On the other hand when you start a multipronged approach with community outreach, technical expertise to control animal behavior, agricultural expertise so they have more food, buying more land for the elephants, paying for game wardens and giving them Humvees with very expensive guns poaching tends to go down.
Now for the kangaroo thing, now that you finally mention something specific, I don't know if its a complete fabrication, a lie, or a half truth. A lot of that gets thrown around the internet, especially at the granola set.
A few possibilities.
1) Kangaroos were not actually being slaughtered and Greenpeace made the whole thing up for donations.
1.5) Greenpeace staged a slaughter and exaggerated the living heck out of it.
2) The lie about Greenpeace is the thing thats made up whole cloth.
3) Green peace snuck a volunteer into a hunt and oddly enough, had to pay for the guide services to do so.
3.5) Green peace paid for 1 hunt and said "just pretend the camera's not there" in order to try to stop the other hunts.
4) Green peace found a film maker, cut him a check , got the documentary/propoganda without knowing the details.
4.5) Green peace found an existing film, said "hey thats just what we needed" bought it and distributed it.
From an anti green peace bit in the new american (surprise)Linky
Greenpeace acquired and distributed a film showing Australian farmers mutilating live kangaroos. The film, entitled Goodbye to Joey, was also made available in Europe and the United States. Using this tool, Greenpeace launched a determined campaign to ban kangaroo products in Europe; the organization even asserted that kangaroos were becoming endangered as a species, although every Australian is painfully aware how much of a pest the overabundant kangaroos are.
This (and a few suspiciously similarly worded entries)are the only reference I can find on the film, but even this less than neutral source seems to suggest that the film was merely BOUGHT by green peace, not made by them.
I remember seeing it vividly. I also remember that there was talk in the news after that it was a false flag operation. It may be that I am wrong on this, but honestly, your rundown is just excuses to preserve your own world view that Greenpeace is Good - i.e. the corresponding thing you accuse me of.
1 is wrong. There was A kangaroo, with evil moron people torturing it.
2 claims it is a lie. Excuse me if I don't answer that.
4.5 is saying Greenpeace's story is true. Ditto.
The rest of them is you defending horrible, cynical people willing to torture animals for gains of influence. Blech.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember seeing it vividly.
I'm not denying its existance.
I also remember that there was talk in the news after that it was a false flag operation.
Which wouldn't surprise me, given the state of the news industry. For example, Greenpeace had a few suggestions for Australia for switching from cattle to the native roos as a source of meat for a number of reasons, including greenhouse gasses, environmental degradation, and the problems of fencing. The stories read Greenpeace advocates kangaroo slaughter!
It may be that I am wrong on this, but honestly, your rundown is just excuses to preserve your own world view that Greenpeace is Good - i.e. the corresponding thing you accuse me of.
How. The. Hell. Is option 1.5, which is Greenpeace slaughtered animals to get donations an excuse to preserve my own world view that Greenpeace is good?
The rest of them is you defending horrible, cynical people willing to torture animals for gains of influence. Blech.
I have been a vegetarian for 20 years. I was in the peace corps. I volunteered at a wolf center. I routinely climbed into garbage dumpsters to fish out raccoons. I once spent 20 minutes swimming through a freezing cold lake to get an injured goose. I've stood bodily in between four numbskulls with a shovel and a flying squirrel and a lot of angry people throwing things at a blacksnake just trying to soak up some rays.
Before you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty or defending people that I would gladly play Gallagher with you need to realize that your say so is not gospel to me. Like everyone else you are just someone else on the internet. Some random stranger's view that there was a false flag operation based on some news reports you heard 20 years ago are not gospel to me which is why I need to ask what you're talking about so I can look into it.
4.5 is saying Greenpeace's story is true. Ditto.
No, it does not. This is not as black and white as you apparently need it to be. Based on the information I can find it looks like greenpeace either hired a film maker or (more likely) found an existing film that that fit their anti kangaroo product ad campaign. Neither possibility makes anything in the film true or false.
I can't find anything that would even indicate if the allegations would be true if applied to the film maker.
If you are going to accuse people of torturing animals for gains of influence you need to back it up and your evidence is WOEFULLY lacking.
I mean what exactly is the evil plan here? Lie----> collect influence-----> ????? -----? Profit?
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing. But what you need to realize is that I answered your comments with why I personally loathe Greenpeace. It wasn't a case where I felt you were not allowed to believe what you would. I honestly don't give a shit what you, some guy on the internet, are thinking.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing.
Nor is a news blurb, which has a vested interest in sensationalizing something, the best source of information.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.
They're doing it wrong then. Their highest paid employee makes less money than my school district superintendent. (The information is on the tabbed section at the bottom)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Greenpeace controls the IPCC?
Come on.
Not to mention the rest of it, but that's pretty much the standard smears.
No one but Sissyl can understand that hogwash.
Of course, questioning her underpants gnome logic, and asking for her to explain her conspiracy theories with evidence and diagrams means that we're fascist lefties who don't respect her right to believe something different...*flips table*
It happened in 1986. The internet is not by any means all-encompassing.Nor is a news blurb, which has a vested interest in sensationalizing something, the best source of information.
But seriously... your underpants gnome analysis is pathetic. Try: Torture animals->Get lots of influence and money->Profit.They're doing it wrong then. Their highest paid employee makes less money than my school district superintendent. (The information is on the tabbed section at the bottom)
Are you seriously stating that influence is only income? Because, you know, I wrote influence AND money for a reason. And if you mean the newspapers have a vested interest in this... but for some unimaginable reason, Greenpeace itself doesn't... I can't help you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, they kill about 2 million kangaroos a year. Why would you NEED to fake something that occurs so regularly? My understanding is that red kangaroos (about half of the kills) don't have a set breeding season so any female thats shot could have a joey.
Are you seriously stating that influence is only income? Because, you know, I wrote influence AND money for a reason.
And we're back to the gnome underwear.
Green peace gains influence.
Greenpeace's malevolent plan is to use that influence to.... ? I mean are you even giving them noble motives in the end here or do they just get a kick out of seeing people wear cow instead of kangaroo? You don't just gain influence to roll around on it.
And if you mean the newspapers have a vested interest in this... but for some unimaginable reason, Greenpeace itself doesn't... I can't help you.
By all appearances, what happened was that greenpeace saw a film that was staunchly against the kangaroo harvest, bought it and distributed it. By the very familiar process media sensationalism and(usually) underestimating the public, this becomes "Greenpeacce slaughters kangaroos!" ... which is the same thing that happened when they suggested switching from cattle to roo.
So Greenpeace's claims were correct, because they are an unbiased source, while the people fined for cruelty to animals because of filming the movie claimed Greenpeace paid them to do it, something that also happened with the baby seal story?
Yeah. Sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're willing to torture animals for your own ends, you kind of lose the right to complain about others doing so. Because you're an evil moron person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a large cull of Eastern Gray and Western Red kangaroos, due to the fact that we have altered the landscape to support grazing animals (sheep and cattle)... The abundance of food allows the kangaroo numbers to get to plague proportions, not a problem until a drought hits (Australia being arid it is a regular thing...) In a drought the Roos die horribly of thirst and starvation and thier rotting carcasses cause disease. The also compete with commercial livestock for the little amount of food left.
Kangaroos are perfectly adapted to the boom bust drought cycle. A female roo can put its embryo into a state of hibernation in tough times. Most female roos are pregnant, with one attached, and one in and out of the pouch.
Having grown up and attended university in the country.. There are "rednecks" (bogans) that drive around in "pickups" (utes) who go roo shooting for fun. The number of irresponsible shooters would be in proportion to anywhere else in the world.
From my point of view - we should get rid of cattle and farm roos, the meat, and leather is better and they are about 1000 times more environmentally friendly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're willing to torture animals for your own ends, you kind of lose the right to complain about others doing so. Because you're an evil moron person.
First of all, no. Torturing of animals is objectively evil. It doesn't become less evil because ONE or SOME people who are protesting it are tangentially involved. You're burying your head in the sand and pretending that it isn't a problem because of some hypocrisy on the part of the people informing you about it? That's just a convenient rationalization.
Second of all, your continued assertion that "no, the ONLY people who are cruel to animals are the animal rights groups, who set up elaborately staged animal torture videos to make Legitimate Business (TM) look bad" is nothing more than a self-reinforcing delusion.
There are literally miles of footage of this sort of wholesale cruelty happening, and the stance that it's okay because YOU have arbitrarily decided to dislike the messenger is not only lazy but morally reprehensible.