Our State government appears to be on a campaign to eradicate native wildlife from Victoria, especially kangaroos

A rather unnecessary diversion into history this time, Vivienne. I am no more in need of a history lesson than you are of a thick juicy steak. However if you wish to digress into history then OK, please consider the following quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln; “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” You are currently in an uncomfortable position because evidently you cannot verify this no competition rubbish that you pedal here and in other forums. Integrity and credibility is still THE ISSUE. If you had any measure of integrity at all you would make prompt specific reference, chapter and verse to the research you claim shows that kangaroos and livestock do not compete for food, or alternately acknowledge that the claim has no substance. To acknowledge you were wrong would at least demonstrate a degree of integrity on your part. I reiterate that you may “have been duped or failed to check sources” in historical context “to err is human…..” You request that I read the references? The fact is I had read the majority of them long before your provision, which really wasn't necessary or helpful as the facts remain unchanged. It does seem apparent that you have a problem with comprehension as it is “Search for Truth” not “Search the Truth”. I fully appreciate that as a city dwelling vegan you may have a very limited understanding of dry sheep equivalents. Respectfully I suggest you reread (very carefully) my previous posts which will further reveal; • I am NOT denying kangaroos an existence or food. • I am not requesting or demanding their eradication. Like it or not Vivienne history cannot be changed. Australia became part of the European Rangeland more than 200 years ago, a legacy we all have to live with. I share your obvious concern about overpopulation of this country with perhaps our most limited resources being soil and water, but I do not condone nor wish to be associated with those that falsify information or knowingly distribute inherently false information. In response to your closing paragraph I respectfully suggest that the question you should be concentrating on at present is the title of my comment (10-01-10) What Research? When you have addressed that question in an appropriate manner and with the results in context you may have a far better grasp of reality. Do livestock consume pastures and water, trample native grasses and soils? Of course they do but so do kangaroos. Livestock do not consciously set out with an agenda of deforestation; I have never seen a sheep driving a bulldozer or a cow wielding a chainsaw. This is a matter of management, the responsibility of another genus entirely. Are livestock polluting rivers? Well yes, but so are birds, fish, humans, kangaroos; well, any dead animal that has the misfortune to fall in before or after death and any animal that leaves its faecal waste atop the ground, drops it from the air or directly in the water. Pollution is such a generalist word of wide ranging connotations and therefore highly subjective.

I may well be a tad pedantic or even radically so, I care not how you view it, the frame of reference is entirely subjective and entirely irrelevant to the issue of my initial comment (10-01-10) For Menkit’s benefit I will clarify that I am not employed by the kangaroo industry and would not want to be associated with it in any way and I am certainly not defending it or those that promote it. Also I have no intimate relationship with any particular kangaroo I consider the interests of the kangaroo is best served by preserving them as WILDlife not as pets, zoo exhibits or bottle fed orphans, etc. Label me pedantic if you like, it is your prerogative. I expected this would be thrown in sooner or later as it is quite a commonly used tactic by persons without sound argument to launch attacks upon the messenger. This is but one reason why I choose to use a nom de plume for my posts hoping that the focus remains more upon the merits of the argument I present rather than any aspects of the messenger. Menkit considers her contributions “very important”, which they might be if they weren't containing so many flawed arguments, flaws which I consider not to be matters of minutiae nor pedantry but flaws of significant proportion. I did not raise the issue of honesty and integrity lightly. I have raised this issue firstly because I do not like to see the strenuous credible efforts of honest and sincere people undermined by thoughtless ill considered actions and diatribe of reckless minorities(or majorities, as the case maybe), and secondly because I have no desire to be associated (nor labelled guilty by) with lies deceit or purveyors thereof. I have been extremely careful not to enter a comparative slanging match pitching research I find against research others put forth as I consider such argument rarely solves anything. Menkit says “It's not like I made the figure up, at least I quoted a valid government website and valid scientific studies from CSIRO.” If I applied Menkit’s logic I could say that ‘CSIRO studies clearly show that Kangaroos exert a grazing pressure of 40%.’ (Source Kangaroos: Fact And Fiction), then if I went to Seasonal Changes in Diet Preferences of Free-Ranging Red Kangaroos, Euros and Sheep in Western New South Wales the competition issue becomes even more confusing. I do not subscribe to the notion that just because it is written it must be true. I have no notion of whether the research of Dr Freudenberger is credible, valid or otherwise but the summary appears on a CSIRO website. Now all I need do is sit and wait for Menkit or some other individual with a chip on their shoulder to attempt to discredit Dr Freudenberger's research if they can provide a valid legitimate criticism or argument then by all means bring it on healthy relevant debate is often the way to the best most appropriate outcome, but if ad hominem diatribe is the best you have please do us all a favour and consign it directly to the recycle bin or do the planet a favour and don’t dredge it up in the first place. Please do us all a favour Menkit before you run off at the mouth (or the keyboard, please excuse my humble pedantricities) again, please consider the analogy of the molehill you accuse me of exploiting in the context of a potential melanoma of potentially lethal consequence and consider whether small is identical to non existent. At this point I could embark upon the proverbial rotten apple in the barrel or the lying with dogs and picking up fleas analogy but I won’t. I have no intention of undermining arguments that have firm and accurate foundations because doing so would be an exercise in futility which I have no time for. Menkit attacks my anonymity and casts aspersions on my integrity because I choose a nom de plume, please tell us all, is Menkit your real name (the one your parents bestowed upon you) or is it one you have chosen to use later in life for some reason? Is the name used by the messenger a legitimate reason to ignore the merit of an argument? I consider highly selective reporting is extremely deceitful especially in the context of your attempted 1%/8% ruse as your prior posts on the internet indicate your full awareness of the 8% estimation and it’s relevance. If the deceitful cap fits, Menkit, by all means wear it; with pride, if your conscience allows, I care not but the measure of your integrity will be measured and judged by the merits of your actions and posts from this point forth not just by me but by all who read your comments. In addition to the ‘deceitful’ head covering another style which may well fit you could include the propagandist variety. My Oxford Dictionary defines propaganda as “an organised programme of publicity, SELECTED INFORMATION, etc., used to propagate a doctrine, practice, etc.” the terms Propaganda and Myth are frequently and often very carelessly (or perhaps very selectively) tossed around by both proponents of Kangaroo culls and those against, this then raises the proverbial analogy of pots and kettles but I would rather not go there. Finally Menkit you accuse me of that most unfavourable act to “harp on and on.” Perhaps the most affective hat you could choose to ward off those potentially ugly damaging, even lethal, molehill melanomas would be an extremely broad brimmed style of the hypocrite genre, I am all but sure you will find at least one hat (or cap, curse my pedanticy) in your size. On Jan 10th I raised but a single issue of truthful reporting of “alleged” research showing a single and particular issue. Your response was not to clearly identify the alleged research (which I suspect you will never be able to do) and let it be; no, your response was to climb aboard your soapbox and seize upon an opportunity to express (yet again) your viewpoint on issues of kangaroo culling, “……the commercial kangaroo industry, government and farmers……”, “….drought, bushfires, flooding, habitat loss, illegal killing, roadkill and so on…..” none of which did I mention nor are even remotely relevant as to whether kangaroos and domestic livestock share a food source or whether there is any credible published research in existence which demonstrates this claim. I was of the understanding that candobetter.org was an opinion forum that welcomed meritorious comment (even though some views expressed may conflict), that supported free speech and democracy, supported activism to bring about democratic change, hopefully for the better of all. But I will not accede to accepting or being associated with blatantly false propaganda or deliberately deceitful efforts regardless of who presents it and subsequently have my reputation tarnished by association with those that engage in such, yet another reason which I consider valid for use of a nom de plume. Re. that big unanswered question, the real pest is the humans undoubtedly, that is how and why changes must be sought.

I assure you Tigerquoll, I am genuine but beware Menkit evidently despises pseudonyms and evidently people who use them. So Beware. You maybe be targeted and headed for the endangered species list yourself. For the record I am not suggesting, nor advocating the apartheid you mention. Take care.