What they should be advocating is a large reduction in meat eating.  I'm sure the natives ate kangaroos, but their population was much lower and they didn't practice animal husbandry.

1.Australia has the same problem with kangaroos that the US has with deer: they hunted the kangaroos natural predators to extinction to protect domesticated animals such as sheep. However, that allowed a giant surge in kangaroo population leading to overpopulation. Overpopulation means that kangaroos are destined to starve. The only humane thing to do is to hunt some kangaroos so that others may live. Eating such as kangaroos in Australia and deer in the United States is a healthier way to consume meat as game animals are higher in protein and lower in fat in cholesterol. Kangaroos aren't ungulates so they don't produce methane gas the way cows do.  

2.Eating wild game is the most ecologically friendly way to eat meat. Game animals are adapted to their environment, usually use up less water than cattle, and can subsist on native plant species rather than nonnative feeds such as alfalfa.  

3.Animal husbandry uses up too much land, produces air, water, and land pollution. It also puts too much control in the hands of major corporations that own most farms and ranches.

What frightens me about human beings even more than their blood-thirstiness is their thoughtlessness.

Killing animals for meat is always a serious, ethically fraught business.  There is nothing "friendly" about it.  Assuming that human beings MUST eat the flesh of non-human animals, and that that justifies their regularly taking the lives of non-human animals -- plus, mocking anyone who might protest -- is an example of terrific thoughtlessness.

Surely the nation of Peter Singer can see that the solution to relying on unsustainable herds of cattle and sheep is NOT to start rounding up kangaroos for the abattoirs, en masse.

And they emit greenhouse gases. What is the problem?

Killing animals for meat is only an ethical question for humans whom don't see themselves as a part of nature.

I am sure they will whisper an Aboriginal prayer of thanks in the ear of each Roo. That should make you happy. Aboriginal spiritualism is to be applauded, unlike Christianity. Unless they are African-American Christians, of course. Then that is fine. Quaint, really.

It's still more effective to eat no meat than it is to eat kangaroo meat.  Plus, I'd say for many people it's probably easier to abstain from meat altogether than to replace beef with kangaroo.  I mean, that's just my guess.

Cacaoatl,

Since we agree that animal husbandry should be eliminated, why not put back the native predators instead of slaughtering the native prey?  Or, if the native predators are extinct, which they are not in the U.S., then, replace them with something as similar as possible?

Hunting/gathering is not at all sustainable with anywhere near the current human population.  We need to first greatly reduce that population before everyone can become hunter-gatherers.  (While Australia is nowhere near as overpopulated as China, India, or the U.S., it's still way above the population that existed before the Europeans invaded.)  A much better solution would be a vegan diet with occasional kangaroo or fish for vitamin B-12.

Humans who want to make a dent in climate change just "need to eat more humans".

The burps and farts of these methane-producing beasts must be curtailed and eating these animals would also provide "substantial conservation benefits".

These dumb creatures run rampant, destroying habitats, over consumming without consideration and proliferating without control.

So next time you see one in the wild, gun it down and bring it home for the whole family to enjoy.
But remember these thick skinned creatures need extra time in the stewing pot..