Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Kangaroo culling in Australia

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:42, 5 April 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
(Argument 1)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 04:42, 5 April 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
(Argument 2)
Next diff →
Line 49: Line 49:
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
-===Argument 2===+===Argument #2===
|- |-

Revision as of 04:42, 5 April 2008

Should Australian people be culling kangaroos?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

In rural Australia, particularly currently in Canberra, government officials are demanding kangaroos are culled to stop them over-populating and ruining Australia's environment.

But of course, this has outraged protesters and local Aboriginal people and they are doing everything they can to stop the proposed cull.

Argument #1

Yes

  • It is important that kangaroos don't over-populate. Kangaroos are breeding quickly and faster than they are dying. They are over-populating and causing havoc in Australia. They are running out of food and the population is getting higher and higher while resources and room for growth gets lower and lower. It is important that the best interests of animals be taken into account. Kangaroos may not want to be killed but there are long-term positive effects.
  • Australian Kangaroos will be culled humanely through sedation then euthanasia. The planned culling will involve dart sedation first, and then euthanasia with lethal injection. Of the many ways to cull an overpopulated animal population, this is the most humane.
  • Moving Kangaroos is likely to traumatize them. The New York Times reported on March 14th, 2008, "The Australian Capital Territory government said its commissioner for sustainability and the environment had considered moving the animals but concluded it would traumatize them."[1]


No

  • Kangaroos are part of Australia's identity. In Australia, the kangaroo is part of their identity. The animal is on the coat of arms, 50c coin and is native to Australia. People from all around the world associate Australia with kangaroos.

And so killing them? That is just wrong to kill kangaroos. It is killing part of Australia's identity and culture. You can't do that!

  • Kangaroos should just be moved, not culled. The main justification for the culling of Kangaroos is that they are overpopulating specific areas, which strains the ecosystem of that area or simply concentrates difficulties for local human populations. Why not simply move a portion of the Kangaroo population in an area somewhere else? This would solve both problems.
  • Kangaroos are not terrorizing wheat crops. SaveTheKangroo.com - "Other justifications for the kill are that kangaroos are pests who destroy wheat crops and compete with livestock for grazing. The largest study of kangaroos ever conducted, carried out by the University of New South Wales, found that the presence of kangaroos has no negative effects on sheep farms whatsoever. A study carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation found that 95 per cent of wheat crops are never visited by kangaroos and furthermore, Gordon Grigg, one of the most avid supporters of kangaroo slaughter and author of Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia, the kangaroo industry’s bible, recently stated that kangaroos’ grazing requirements may have been over-estimated by as much as 500 per cent."


Argument #2

Yes

  • There must be a reason why the RSPCA are for the idea. The RSPCA is the Royal Society for the Protectin of Cruelty to Animals. This organisation always looks into the best interests of animals. If the RSPCA are for the cull, obviously there must be a reason, and that reason is that roos are over-populating, causing problems and are running out of resources.
  • Kangaroos are causing problems in Australia. If you live in Australia, especially in rural areas, you'll know that kangaroos cause problems. They can be aggressive (attack people) endanger wildlife and often cause accidents. An example is how kangaroos often run in front of cars. Not only do they get hit and die, but they cause damage to the vehicle. Kangaroos getting hit by cars is a regular occurrence in rural areas of Australia; where the cull is being planned to take place.


No

  • Kangaroos have been a part of Native Aboriginal culture for thousands of years.

Kangaroos are native to Ausralia and special to Aboriginies. Aboriganal Australians are totally opposed to the cull and have protested to the point that they are camping on the proposed culling site.

Aboriginals cannot take a loss like this and really, Europeans invaded their land and now they are trying to kill the animals native to Aboriginal country. That is not the way white Australians should respect the people whose land they took over.


Argument 3

Yes

If the kangaroos aren't killed in controlled conditions, they'll die out eventually.

  • Kangaroos are over-populating Australia. Australia is baron and is currently experiencing a drought. Food resources for the local kangaroos are getting low and kangaroos are running out of survival options.
  • If kangaroos are not killed under controlled conditions, they will eventually die out and die slowly and painlessly. A cull is killing a small number quickly and painlessly and is necessary to ensure kangaroos do not become endangered.

No

  • Killing is cruel to animals. Killing is cruel to any animal and obviously killing kangaroos is animal cruelty. There isn't really much more to say. This is a simple, yet important point to take into account in this debate.
  • Kangaroo culls are unnecessary as Kangaroos are already being massacred for commercial purposes Australia has a booming Kangaroo meet and leather industry. Companies such as Adidas are involved in large-scale commercial killings of Kangaroos for the purpose of exporting Kangaroo leather for soccer shoes. SaveTheKangaroo.com reports that "Australia exports approximately 3 million kangaroo skins, worth more than £12 million, to Europe and the USA every year."[2]. If so many Kangaroos are being killed for commercial purposes, why would it be seen as necessary to cull additional kangaroos. If the government gives so much freedom to commercial killings, it should at least be willing to concede to animal rights groups the practice of culling.


Argument 4

Yes

Culling is not slaughtering and will not endanger kangaroos.

  • Culling is conducted under controlled conditions and ensures that kangaroos are killed painlessly and only some are killed.
  • Culling is not slaughtering and only some will be killed, not all. Kangaroos are not endangered and culling won't endanger them; if it would, then culling would not take place.

No

There is an alternative to killing kangaroos. The Australian Government should at least try it.

  • In some parts of Australia kangaroos are over-populating, but in most parts of the country, their numbers are either small or nil. Relocating some of the kangaroos to fertile, overgrown places would mean their poulation was reduced in one area, welcomed in antoher and then we won't have to kill them.

Pro/con resources

Yes

No


External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.