Australia's military will cull up to 500 wild kangaroos on a military base in the capital city of Canberra after authorities determined Friday that it would be too costly to relocate them. Officials say overgrazing 'roos are endangering native grassland, a local lizard, and the threatened golden sun moth. A plan to shoot the animals was abandoned after police warned that stray bullets could strike nearby residents or protesters, so the kangaroos will be tranquilized and then given lethal injections.
source: Reuters
see also, in Gristmill: California Supreme Court upholds ban on kangaroo-hide sneaks
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 7:01 pm
07 Mar 2008
Permalink
javaearth Posted 1:20 pm
08 Mar 2008
Permalink
el mono Posted 1:39 pm
08 Mar 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:22 pm
08 Mar 2008
Ultimately we are animals as much as the kangaroos are. That we can contemplate killing only a portion of the kangaroos instead of every one we can catch until we aren't hungry anymore is a blessing on both species.
The tragedy is that the use of tranquilizers will probably spoil the meat.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:13 pm
08 Mar 2008
If the use of the intellect, in contemplation and reflexion, to minimize the amount of killing, in a case where the decision has been made to follow a course of killing, is a blessing, then surely the finer use of the intellect, to make the more advanced realization that killing is unnecessary, undesirable and unacceptable, is a far greater blessing.
Permalink
ndunne Posted 3:25 am
09 Mar 2008
Alice in Wonderland? Bambi?
Broccoli is my brother! So is curly kale! And all other forms of Brassica oleracea! Let us steam 'em up nice, and serve em with a juicy kangaroo filet.
Permalink
Leprof Posted 1:27 pm
09 Mar 2008
Even if we frame the arguments purely in terms of utility or value to the kangaroos (i.e. a completely kangaroo-centric argument) it is not tricky to argue that the quality of life gained by the entire kangaroo population is as large as the negative value for the portion of the kangaroo population that was culled out. Likely, the kangaroos, as they exist now, are not living what might be considered a "good life" for a kangaroo.
We can draw, for example, a parallel to the prescribed burnings of pine savannas in the American South. I'm sure little furry things die in these burnings, but they are ESSENTIAL to the health of the ecosystem, the survival of numerous species, and, ultimately, the quality of life for future furry things.
It is extremely well established that overpopulation by herbivores results in a loss of biodiversity, sweeping changes in vegetation, and a poor parody of what once was an amazing biological system.
I can understand the concern that we should use other methods of population control for the 'roos, but there simply aren't always the resources to do so, without limiting other conservation projects.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:43 pm
09 Mar 2008
unlike "blessing," which is a peculiarly biblical word, and "contemplation," which is proper to Platonic and Aristotelian traditions in Greek philosophy, thence adopted by mystics in the biblical tradition, "wicked" is a term common to all ethics. It is usually considered an appropriate qualifier for moral agents who are self-centered and self-promoting, and who instigate or condone actions destructive of vulnerable and helpless neighbors.
In fairy tales, "wicked" characters happen to be mostly female, perverse mother-figures: queens, witches, stepmothers. In the Bible, they are male: e.g., Pharaoh, King Herod, even the otherwise faithful King David when he arranged the death of Uriah the Hittite. And from extra-biblical sources of ethics, we could accuse such biblical stars as Elijah, who slew hundreds of rival prophets, and Yahweh himself, for such crimes as the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn, and the sending of the Flood, as being "wicked."
With a transferred sense, the euphemism "to cull," meaning "to kill a number of animals within a population, short of extermination," is "wicked," because its intention is to remove an act of killing sentient beings from any suspicion of moral questionability, and instead, deceitfully to present it as morally neutral and acceptable.
"To cull" in fact is a word pertinent to agriculture and horticulture, referring to the thinning of plants, and the plucking of flowers. The action does not necessarily result in the death of plants. When it was first applied, metaphorically and euphemistically, to "managing" (another unhappy euphemism) the numbers of wild animals, I do not know, but no doubt that could be discovered easily enough.
As for "my brothers the brassicae": Well, first, you misunderstand me if you think I am a vegangelical PETA-phile. I most certainly am not; it matters little to me what you eat or do not eat, I cannot justly judge you for a moral deficiency of an entire civilization, and I have no expectation whatsoever that anything I might write should influence a meat-eater to reconsider.
But also, thank you, NJD, for mocking my use of "cousins" in my sign-off message. Mockery is a matter of no account, particularly coming from people such as yourself who do not mind engaging in it. But I have never been quite satisfied with that message -- which is just meant to be both silly and provocative -- , and now perhaps I shall actually do something to change it.
Chickens and fish are indeed our cousins; that is not at all false. But so are broccoli and kale, if it is true that all the Kingdoms of living creatures on Earth descend from the first DNA-founded organisms to appear here over 3 billion years ago. And, realistically, there seems to be no moral objection, on the basis of consanguinity (well, con-DNA-ity) against our eating or otherwise using parts of non-sentient living creatures. There may very well be other good moral objections against, say, cutting down ancient trees, out of an appreciation of their being fellow living creatures.
And on the other hand, our objections against the too easy, culturally sanctioned taking of the lives of chickens, fish and kangaroos are not based on their being cousins -- as true as that relationship is -- , but on their sentience, vulnerability and helplessness.
LeProf,
thanks for your excellent observations. Please know that I, for one, do not stand in utter opposition to the "culling"/killing of the kangaroos of Canberra. I know enough about ecosystems here in the US Northeast, severely damaged by white-tailed deer, who have gone very long without a check on their populations, to understand what you are saying about the danger to many other species caused by the overabundance of large herbivores.
Environmental ethicists too tend to say that the good of conserving or restoring a healthy ecosystem outweighs the good of saving the lives of individual animals.
Unfortunately, that is one of a small number of issues on which environmental ethicists and animal-rights ethicists might disagree. Since I have a foot in both camps, my position is that we should make a great effort to seek compromise.
It may indeed be the only practical solution, for the sake of ecosystems in peril, that kangaroos must die in Canberra, white-tailed deer must die in many places in the US, and African elephants must die in Kruger National Park, SA (but that is more morally complicated, because of the elephants' high degree of socialization).
But I would insist that calling those killings "cullings" or "culls" is wicked. And, once those killings are done, it would be similarly wicked to consider it a job well done, a "management success." It is a terrific failure, actually, the result of our having messed up in a huge way. And we should emphasize that it is a failure. We should emphasize how much we have failed, for example, when we need to consider the cost of moving kangaroos, over against their lives.
The foes of the rare lizards of Canberra are NOT the kangaroos. The foes of the rare raptors of Kruger NP are NOT the elephants. The foes of the migratory birds of Pennsylvania are NOT the deer.
It is us.
Why do we not have the courage to admit that?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:48 pm
09 Mar 2008
It is us.
Why do we not have the courage to admit that?
You really didn't expect an answer to that question did you? Short of severely culling the human species that gets us nowhere as a "you've got a Ph.D. in "Obvious Studies."" Thesis title: The sky is generally blue.
What we need is a really yummy amazon fruit that renders 1/2 the children of the eaters sterile. Which is why anybody who voluntarily eats GM foods is insane. Funny extra proteins could abound.
Science fiction has beat these issues to a pulp. Note:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuf_Voyaging
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:46 pm
09 Mar 2008
"To cull" in fact is a word pertinent to agriculture and horticulture, referring to the thinning of plants, and the plucking of flowers. The action does not necessarily result in the death of plants. When it was first applied, metaphorically and euphemistically, to "managing" (another unhappy euphemism) the numbers of wild animals, I do not know, but no doubt that could be discovered easily enough.
I have often considered that our own species seems to be imminently targeted for a great cull, by mother nature herself, through what might be called the 'market correction' of global climate change. To follow your chain of thought, Canis, would that make her 'wicked', or merely guilty of management errors (in allowing us to so screw up our world)?
Permalink
ndunne Posted 6:32 am
10 Mar 2008
Sorry for mocking your sign-off line earlier in the thread. That was lazy ("wicked"?) of me. I didn't have the time to write a measured response, and thankfully LeProf was on hand to oblige.
I don't really have much else to add to LeProf's eloquent rebuttal, except to say that your idea that ecologists come to some kind of "compromise" with animal rights folks over this issue seems misguided. Our planet's natural systems have been compromised enough. Where do we put the kangaroos once they've been rounded up? Transplant them to another natural area that is probably way over carrying capacity? Ship em to the zoo to be poked and prodded? Train them to perform in a Disney musical about how cute and cuddly and innocent and vulnerable all animals are -- except for the wicked large predators?
Ecological meltdown caused by the human culling/killing of predators is not isolated to a few specific regions/habitats or a few "problem" herbivores -- see http://www.conbio.org/CIP/article10812.cfm.
To imply that wildlife/land managers are unaware (or don't have the courage to acknowledge) that humans caused the system imbalances in the first place is absurd. To imply that they are "wicked" or morally impoverished for adopting what is probably the only management technique -- sad or unpleasant as it might be (not all culling involves direct killing) -- that will successfully restore balance to an entire community of species is an insult to the compassionate people who chose this line of work.
As for the word "wicked," it seems better suited (as you imply yourself) for use in discussions about the bible and fairy tales.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:49 am
10 Mar 2008
And of course it is highly controversial, whether there is any culpability that demands the death sentence. Now, if Gaia were to turn Mother Nature against us in an act of self-defense, so to speak, would that make the "cull" of humanity justifiable? Certainly not, if those who were "culled" were followers, not leaders; perhaps, if they were the leaders. But that is a very strange hypothetical situation.
It should be clear that when I point to human culpability as the cause of the disastrous state of certain ecosystems, I am certainly not recommending that human beings be put to death. A natural, unforced reduction in population is considered by many environmentalists to be desirable, but I have no idea how that would practically be helped along.
NJD,
I more or less agree with everything you have written now. Please understand that I have no solutions, though the news report itself suggests that if only funds were available, the kangaroos might be transported to a more accommodating location.
Please understand also that the the subjective judgment of "cuteness" or "cuddliness" is immaterial. In fact, the movement that we might be pleased to call Steve-Irwinism, originating in Australia, is a great new cultural event in popular attitudes toward wildlife. Steve showed a large number of fans, perhaps for the first time, that such uncuddly animals as snakes and crocs were indeed precious and lovable.
Please understand also that I certainly do not consider wildlife officials to be wicked. I very well know that they love the animals whose care is their charge. In Africa, many officials die every year, gunned down by poachers.
But "wickedness" most certainly exists; and moral relativism is to be eschewed. Wickedness exists in a form that can be characterized by Hannah Arendt's famous expression, "the banality of evil." When everyone in a system excuses himself or herself simply by saying, "Well, resources are limited, there are not many options, and there are other competing conservation priorities, so I have done all I can do, so what happens now is not my fault, and that's that," then as a society we are not working hard enough, we are not forcing ourselves to think clearly enough.
Still worse is the encouragement to be complacent with that kind of attitude, which comes from the mean prejudice that those of us who do indeed believe that environmental ethics and animal-rights ethics can be reconciled are sentimental, infantile fools.
Permalink
usandthem Posted 1:28 pm
10 Mar 2008
You can blame this on "god",yahweh,mother nature,or whatever makes you feel good.
We eliminated wolves in most of the lower 48 states and the deer have more than flourished to the point of being a nuisance and a danger to automobiles and themselves.Kangaroos are the deer of australia.When people manipulate nature in whatever form then balance is destroyed and problems will emerge.We passed a law to reintroduce wolves into the eco-system 25yrs. ago and now this last year we(our so-called representatives)are allowing the killing of these same wolves,because they are a bother to cow and sheep ranchers in the west.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:22 am
11 Mar 2008
Where I would support culling or totally eliminating animals is where non-native animals have been introduced by humans and are causing significant harm to an ecosystem. But this is clearly not the case here.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:23 pm
14 Mar 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/kangaroos.aus ....
At least we are assured a few people are out there to protest, including somebody with a Steve Irwin connexion.
I do not know that kangaroos deserve special affection for being Australia's "symbol," but sure, why not. If you got it, flaunt it. During the 2006 World Cup, among my favorite moments were seeing the Australia fans waving their inflated rubber kangaroos, e.g. during the terrific defeat of Japan in the final minutes. I want one, actually.
"An Australia fan, you mean?" Ha!
Meanwhile, though, in Canberra, things look very serious indeed, for a few hundred innocent kangaroos.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:03 am
17 Mar 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23660295/
Note that originally, an even larger number of Canberra kangaroos were on death row. Also, the pro-kangaroo partisans are intending to interpose themselves between the kangaroos and the tranquilizer darts. And they are indeed challenging Kevin Rudd's government to do the right thing and transport the kangaroos to a more accommodating area.
Of course, the "right thing," for the sake of the truly endangered lizards and insects, ought to include conservation and restoration of native grassland, too.
Permalink