Do you think it is right decision by Australian Government? Details Inside.

My first thought was no. Absolutely not.

But then I thought, what’s the reason behind their decision, what are the details?
It could be that uncontrolled numbers could result in habitation issues, a direct affect on other animals and species present in the areas, including plants/vegetation and insects. Animal population is important, the animal Kingdom and food chains are complex and very delicate.

Why have the kangaroos population increased so much? Have they had predators or competitors in the past whose numbers have gone down? For example coyotes and wild dogs etc.

I’m against animal cruelty but sometimes bad things have to be done for the greater good. The question is, what is the reason for them deciding to do so? Only then can one make an informed judgement.

Sure. For the same reason that in many states, there is a deer hunting season; because the animals procreate like crazy and there aren’t enough natural predators to kill them, and the land cannot supply them with enough nourishment to keep them alive.

I’m assuming that the naturalists in Australia have studied these factors, and determined that a smaller healthier population is better.

It depends where it is @imrainmaker. Sometimes animals need to be culled for their own protection. If there are too many and there isn’t sufficient food, it might be exactly the right thing to do. As long as the culling is done humanely, it’s a sad fact of life.

That happens annually here with deer. Would make more sense if they sold the meat and other parts for profits to offset taxes, but we’re talking about the government here, and making sense generally doesn’t happen when it comes to those guys.

I’m always conflicted on the topic of killing to control the numbers. When I was younger I felt like it was just an excuse for hunters to feel like they were doing the herd some sort of favor. It also sounded selfish, an rationale to keep building on the lands that once housed and nourished wildlife.

With deer they eat the meat. Is that the case with kangaroos? Or, do they just kill them and incinerate them?

I see why people say culling is better than large numbers of animals being undernourished, but then how do you pick? Who gets to be God and choose which animals of the herd to kill? As humans we would go through eating much less before killing people to keep the rest of us more nourished.

Yes

Sure. As long as they eat them.

Yes, it’s the right decision.

Mankind has disrupted the natural order of things to such an extent that nature has no balance. Better to thin the herd than to have nature do it through illness and starvation – which it will.
As many have said here, there are regular campaigns to thin the deer population in the US. The deer have few natural predators, and quickly overpopulate. City people understandably often view this as a tragedy and a travesty. People who live where “the deer and antelope play” understand the necessity of controlling some “wild” animal populations through hunts.

I understand that there’s a lot of emotion and controversy involved. I looked at one Australian site on the subject of thinning kangaroos, and the same site stated that 800,000 kangaroos were killed every year, and that kangaroo overpopulation was a myth.

I’m a ‘country mouse’, so I’ll believe that thinning the kangaroo population is necessary.