Comments

I first worried about this people populating thing in 1936 . The years since then have proved , beyond doubt , that 50% of people are below average intelligence with respect to any intellectual endeavour one might choose .... (the footy player's response to Dick Smith and Bob Carr earlier this year is evidence of it) . For this reason alone neither stick nor carrot will be of any use in this populating matter .... it will roll on until all sellable resources are sold , or, if we are stupid enough to demur , they come to take it . Because of a "stick" there are now 20 million or so of them wifeless , a much larger army this time around . Forget Iran ..... Lock up your daughters ... and wake in terror.

John Marlow 13/2/10 is right of course ..... but .... it is worth remembering that if you can't lick 'em you'd best join 'em .... you tend to last a bit longer that way..... and also to remember that the REAL problem is built into every last one of us. We haven't much by way of choices in managing our own hormones it seems , let alone those of 6 or 7 billion others ... and an equally promiscuous Mother Nature (Lemmings ,Rabbits ,Cockroaches etc.).

Kevin Rudd, in an interview with Jon Faine, 774 ABC Melbourne 03 September 2009 said to a caller:

"You know something, I thought we had a bit of bipartisan consensus on this going back to, let me say World War Two, that this country, a nation of immigrants, will continue to be a nation of immigrants into the future".

This means that contrary to peak oil, climate change, sustainability, water, food and housing shortages, soil degradation and environmental meltdown, we must have continual immigration-driven population growth - because we must be locked into a culture of being a "nation of immigrants"!

Something that was expedient, beneficial and appropriate policy in the past does not mean we can necessarily continue the same trend that started from Colonial days. There have been many changes and challenges since 1949!

We have environmental stress, especially on our Murray Darling food bowl, developments eating up our limited fertile coastal areas, homelessness, rising costs and public opinion contrary to limitless population growth.

Those attracted to Australia due to our "skills shortages" are not guaranteed to work in their skilled area, or live where these skills are required. It is just another immigration excuse, ironically in a country with a multi-billion dollar "export" education industry.

We need leaders who are willing to face contemporary issues, with an ability to make decisions based on current situations, not be locked up in the past and too rigid to change directions.

Kevin Rudd is a 1950's time-warp, while we are now in 2010. It is time he updated his calendar and had a reality check! Global threats to our future are too numerous to mention, and the elephant in the room is our unsustainable population explosion.

Population growth rate for Australia last year was 2.1%, ABS figure, not 1.8% as quoted above. At this rate, Australia's population rate will have more than doubled by 2050. If our government can keep the figure "down" to 35 million, then they can start keeping it down now. Why wait until Nature, or Gaia, stops the infestation? More and more land has been taken over for food production to feed the growing population, to provide housing and infrastructure for that population and now, to provide land for energy crop production. And oceanic fishing has increased in intensity. The consequences are manifold. With our Rudd government all out encouragement of non-renewable energy sources, mining and population growth, any addressing of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions is a pure charade to convince a naive public that something is being done when in reality it is pure tokenism.

The Brumby Government’s north-south pipeline is to transport 75 billion litres of water each year from the Goulburn River system for use in Melbourne. The Goulburn River is already under extreme stress and was found, by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s Sustainable Rivers Audit in 2008, to have "poor" to "extremely poor" health, the worst of any of the 23 rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin. A moribund river system will be exploited even further. The extra $70 million for the upgrade our water infrastructure to accommodate the north-south pipeline project will add to the public's water bill, along with the $3.5 billion Wonthaggi desalination plant. Our water bills are said to double in the next five years to fund all this extra infrastructure. The massive Thomson dam was finished in 1983 and was supposed to "drought proof" Melbourne. However, population has exceeded the level the dams were intended to cater for. Brumby's desperation to supply water to Melbourne, at our expense, is not about a sustainable water supply solution in response to climate change, but sustaining water for our socially-engineered population growth.

Any Council who had refused to consider a request for accommodation made by a single woman who is raising two children alone should be removed from power. Its their duty to make sure that any child is looked after and has a roof over their heads. Editorial comment: candobetter does not encourage the further growth of the motor vehicle industry an advertisement for which this comment is linked to. Nevertheless, we appreciate the comment and have no reason to assume that it is not sincere.

The issue is not about what is in the meat! The issue is about protecting our wildlife. Not everything in our planet is about US, humans, for our benefit! The kangaroo killing industry has a well-oiled publicity machine that has conned the public into thinking that eating it is "green"! Very clever but they ignore the facts. Humans don't have to eat meat at all! All the nutrients are obtainable from non-animal sources, except for vitamin B12. There are many impacts on our wildlife, including kangaroos. There is loss of habitat, climate change, genetic gene-pool depletion and the cruelty of it. These animals are wildlife, and there is no way to ensure the health of the animals, or to avoid the cruelty to dependent joeys. That's why it is called "game" meat! Eat it at your own risk. That's why Russia stopped importing it. It would be logistically impossible to drive chillers to where the roos are killed. The costs would blow out. There is no way to ensure a “sustainable” kangaroo meat supply. Already we have make some macropods extinct, and kangaroos are suffering from genetic pool limitations due to having the biggest and best ones destroyed. Kangaroos can't be farmed as they suffer from stress if captured and contained. All the regulations and quotas haven’t stopped the fishing industry from collapsing. With billions of people in China, they will soon eat through our iconic animals. These are very challenging times for Australian wildlife. We are already the world's biggest wildlife exterminator, and this slaughter is the biggest terrestrial wildlife slaughter in the world.

There is a new frightening report that MP for Agriculture, Tony Burke, is negotiating the export of kangaroo meat to China! See ABC Online report "China agrees to roo meat imports". Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke says while export protocols are yet to be finalised, the Chinese have agreed to import roo meat. While activists have plugged a hole, Russia, and others are in the process of stopping the import of kangaroo products to the EU, we have Tony Burke, with the assistance of Anna Bligh no doubt, doing their best to increase this dirty trade! There are many myths being propagated by the kangaroo meat industry, and our Government has just announced that the industry's 4000 workers will be trained under a $400,000 package to "clean" it's image and woo back Russia! More training and skills will not make a difference to what is morally wrong and cruel. This disgusting decision to export kangaroo meat to China, a country full of billions of people with such horrific treatment of animals already, is utterly disgusting and shameful. Jobs and economic benefits are being put above common sense, loyalty, patriotism, and compassion for animals that are our own kind, and part of our national heritage - as they are Australian! Being Australian doesn't mean much these days, with globalisation and mass immigration, but it does to lots of genuine Aussies who love our landscape and native animals.

Thanks Tim for this very timely article. I'm very interested in Herman Daly, CASSE, Ecological Footprint, Tim Jackson's "Prosperity without Growth" and some great articles from the new economics foundation. These seem to be the voices that are relevant to the future, 'til, as the Beatles said, 'til there was you. O.k. a few points I would make: Sustainable development has, as you say, been taken to mean many things to many people, MOST bastardising the definition of "development" which has at its core, "to make better" - as opposed to sustainable "growth" - to grow, meaning "to reach maturity". This of course indicates what you implied, the finiteness of the single planet, which MUST, at some stage, have SOME body which concerns itself ONLY with environmental limits. What do we have now, - cost benefit and risk analysis. Hence the necessity for the Ecological Footprint to be the assessor of consumption and production and the 'standard' of sustainability. (I know the current "system" is flawed in that it sets aside ALL productive earth for human consumption without allocating anything for the spacial needs of biodiversity. BIG problem). I don't agree with the population argument totally. It is demonstrable that indigenous populations have a very small footprint, India & China being cases in point. The reason large populations BECOME unsustainable is when they adopt western industrialised "lifestyles". As stated in "Agenda 21" in 1992, "the main reason for continued degradation of the environment is the unsustainable methods of production and consumption, particularly in industrialised society" (Chapter 4 ,Agenda 21) Overshoot tells us that not too long ago, the planet was (excuse the term) sustainable, (even though equality was non existent) sometime in the 80's. Yet we are so enamoured with growth. Although funnily enough I heard of a Federal Treasury "body" called the "intergenerational committee" which has just made a pronouncement that "growth" for the next 40 years should be standardised at 2.7% instead of the recent past 3.5%. Growth economies are slowly coming to realise the environmental limits that exist. Peak Oil a classic. Our whole current monetary system, relying on "interest" payments with borrowings, sets the accepted standard for the growth that must occur to service these debts. New economics foundation latest paper is called "Growth isn't possible", and explores all the options as far as "efficiency", energy intensity etc that have sprung out of nowhere, confined to the trash can of the future along with things like "offsets". I think I read in some of Herman Daly's reports that SOME growth, (gleaned from the "natural" abundance of the planet) is possible. Fish do breed - except when they come into contact with the "factory ships" that swallow everything. But what does this mean? Work, less work for everyone, a shared experience. Government gets bigger, to regulate and supervise the natural resources that it oversees. People reduce consumption and production runs on Life Cycle Analysis. It means the end of voodoo economics. The Australian Greens "Green New Deal" is very much based on Tim Jackson's work, altho' to openly advocate at this low environmental ebb, would be political suicide. I'm a great believer in numbers, and at present they're just not there, nor will they be I fear within the short time that is left. 25% of the vote, around Pauline Hansens % is needed to even begin a critical mass.

36 researchers from Queensland universities, government departments and industry groups have formed the Koala Research Network to share information and lobby for better protection of the animals. A website has been launched which maps koala sightings across Queensland. It has been set up by two Sunshine Coast residents. www.koaladiaries.com.au It means anyone sighting a koala – whether alive, injured or dead – can register its location to the exact tree, field or road where the animal was located in three easy internet steps. Among the fans was Bob Irwin, who was the founding force, alongside his son Steve, for Australia Zoo. “It really is the answer to doing something to save endangered species,” Mr Irwin said after a demonstration of the website. Ms Beaton, who launched the site, said 2010 would be crunch time for koalas in the state after losing about 25,000 of the animals in 10 years. It is heartwarming that while the public are involved with wildlife protection, our most profile State politicians are quite blaze and are happy for tokenism as a public placebo rather than do the real thing - protect koalas by declaring them ENDANGERED - by the real threat of developer-driven population growth!

The reason the "P" vanished from the "IPAT" equation is simple if you know high school math. Population level times per capita consumption equals total consumption. Or to put it another way, total consumption divided by total population (i.e. per capita consumption) times total population equals total consumption. The actual population figure is thus irrelevant; only total consumption counts. Once you drop out total population from the IPAT equation, it becomes simply: Total consumption times technology equals environmental impact. So reducing environmental impact means changing consumption or the use of technology, or both. It's not a "population" issue at all, unless one chooses, for ideological reasons, to make it so.

I am new to this site and want to know how to get involved to save these areas

A PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON POPULATION I do not know if this has or not somethig to do with the article above, but I am forced to write here because I cannot access my BLOG ( MARISA), due to some technological glitch. I want to comunicate that this month of February a new mass initiative will kick off marking the event of The Global Population Speak Out 2010 (GPSO 2010), a public discussion on the Issue of Population.Out (GPSO) . see: http://gpso.wordpress.com/2010-actions/ Associations, organisations and concerned individuals of many countries, will join in promoting this world initiative. The Italian association Rientrodolce a major participant, will develop myriad communications, in support of the initiative. Rientrodolce has always been aware of the connection of Overpopulation and Growth as main engines of the unsustainability of a healthy social and economic metabolism. Rientrodolce’s first contribution to the GPSO 2010 will advocate this specific interpretation of the present ecological predicament. To mark its own debut, the association has launched an online periodical publication titled: “Overshoot”, which gatgers informatioins, news, articles and opinions on population and resources, whose first number is downloadable at: http://www.rientrodolce.org/media/overshoot/overshoot_n0.pdf . News of further initiatives will be published on the above Site and through the Social Networks Channels. Paolo Musumeci (President of Rientrodolce) Luca Pardi( Secretary) Stefano Bilotti (Treasurer) http://www.rientrodolce.org Maria Luisa Cohen (collaborator) http://www.assisinaturecouncil.org edet [ AT ] assisinc.ch

Ortega appears to give credence to the statement by CONAM's President that: "If climatic conditions remain as they are, all the glaciers (in Peru) below 18,000 feet will disappear by around 2015." This idea clearly based on the IPCC's human caused climate warming hypothesis which is in the process of crumbling, and will in future be recognised as the greatest hoax in the history of science. I offer a copy of a message that I sent to Canadian Parliamentarians CC: News Media ---- late last week. CLIMATE EXAGGERATION - 101 1. MY PERSONAL CLIMATE JOURNEY: I started pressing the Canadian federal government about the efficacy of carbon taxation to avoid further climate warming in the late 1990s // I had a proposal for an international scheme for carbon taxation in the October 2003 Issue of ASPO News and shortly after the same proposal ran as an article on Jan Lundberg's CULTURE CHANGE / then I got enthused about the proposal of Ian Dunlop (Australia) for individual tradeable carbon credits (ITCs), and I tried to get Prime Minister Harper to communicate with Dunlop who had volunteered to help Canada design such an ITC system / then in 2008 I became enthused about the possibility of enhancing the fertility agricultural land by using BIOCHAR to produce new TERRA PRETA soils -AND - at the same time as sequestering lots of carbon to draw down the atmospheric levels that I accepted were the 'cause of global warming'. At the end of 2008 I happened to run into climate some of the climate scientists who did not support the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, and who had plausible alternative climate change hypotheses. At the same time I became suspicious of the increasingly strident PROJECTIONS for future climate disasters as AGW advocates tried to outdo each other with catastrophic predictions. I re-read papers that I had shelved for years (I'd been too busy with my own research to read and digest them properly) about the sequence of temperature rise followed by CO2 increases in the Vostok ice cores, and I got exposed to the sordid history of the political origins of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its refusal to support OR RECOGNISE any research that did not investigate the fine points of 'human caused climate warming'. Then in early 2009 there were a series of climate conferences in the US, with attendance of 100s of climate scientists, many of whom presented research papers that ran counter to IPCC / AGW human caused global warming hypothesis. These people had not only never had a hearing by the IPCC but also had been actively prevented from publishing some of their results by the well funded IPCC gang (I trust that you have heard about the evidence for this skulduggery that was revealed in the in the CLIMATEGATE emails just before Christmas, 2009). NOTE: The 4th International Conference on Climate Change will be held in Chicago- May 16-18, 2010. For more information go to http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/index.html I have been reading climate history for over a year now and I have not seen any evidence that supports the IPCC's assumptions that carbon containing gases drive global climate -OR- that the Global Climate Model PROJECTIONS of future catastrophic climate warming have any validity. There is no one as vociferous as a CONVERT, and I can tell you that I am furious about having been hoodwinked for over a decade by the the IPCC's claims for science consensus on the issue, and the IPCC's assurances that the case for human caused climate warming was so ironclad that THERE WAS NO NEED TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE FURTHER. -------------------------------------- 2. SERIOUS CLIMATE WARMING DEBUNKED It was bad enough that Michael Mann et al. straightened the long HANDLE on the iconic, and now infamous, HOCKEY STICK GRAPH as they fabricated an extended history of stable climate leading up to the early 1970s by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from the record, see: ‘Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate’ – a report that includes considerable reference to peer reviewed literature, see: http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/22835.pdf Now, with this report authored by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts (see below), we have a documented evidence record of how the hockey stick BLADE was produced. The blade of the hockey stick represents supposedly unprecedented temperature increases in recent decades. The exaggerated (and now discredited) unprecedented temperature increases, that were added to Michael Mann et al.'s fabrication of an extended stable climate history, were used to implicate human carbon containing gas emissions as the driver of global climate warming during the last decades of the 20th century. NOTE: This 30-year climate warming followed three decades of climate cooling that started in the early 1940s, during which some of the same climate catastrophists, who are now warning us about FUTURE climate warming, were warning us about the arrival of a new Ice Age. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis promulgated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was strengthened by IPCC supported modelling that PREDICTED catastrophic FUTURE climate change if humanity did not lower its emissions of carbon containing gases --- and --- the 'drum beating', 'flag waving', 'placard carrying' collection of prognosticators who bought the AGW hypothesis, and then competed with each other to come up scenarios if increasingly serious FUTURES for the planet ---------------------- all have brought us to round robin international conferences (Copenhagen in December being the most recent), draconian, dangerous, and phenomenally expensive climate modification schemes such as carbon capture and storage, seeding the oceans with iron to enhance photosynthesis by plankton, firing mirrors into space to reflect sunlight away from the Earth etc etc. ------------------------ I am sending you material that SHOULD influence you to reconsider pursuing ideas/proposals that are based on the massively government funded hypothesis that the global climate is driven by carbon containing gases - as opposed to variations in solar activity, see: 'SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?' by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts at: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surfac... Peter Salonius

Great article and well researched information, Vivienne. Sorry that changes are happening which affect people, animals, vegetation and landscapes. However, Life is about change......nothing stays the same.....or perhaps history repeats itself? Thoughts for Insights.....

Unfortunately, Much of what is in this article is either misinformed or the unfortunate 1% that affects any industry. I am not an active kangaroo shooter although I do live on a large property where their numbers are out of control. I have been kangaroo shooting before and do give a selected few professional shooters the opportunity to make their living off my land. Firstly I would like you to explain how the people catch the kangaroos to hung them upside down by the leg. The are a very fast and powerful animal I doubt that even Ben Johnson whilst on steroids could catch one. The photo that your article shows is off a kangaroo with its stomach broken and its digested food (grass) smeared over its flesh. Not a kangaroo covered in gangrene as implied. Next time you try to influence people to your way of thinking use hard facts, do not exaggerate and lie as it only discredits the whole argument.

Yes but Quark here is the silver lining of the cloud - we can each one of us do something right now to reverse this. In fact the Earth depends on each of us right now. It is the midnight hour but not quite too late .... What is required is that we all phase out meat and dairy from our diets. It doesn't have to be overnight. Take your time. Start with eating red meat only twice a week then once a week then none, moving down to poultry etc then lastly fish. Meat substitutes can be purchased in the supermarket that look and taste pretty close to the real thing or you can try recipes at www.vegcooking.com or www.veganeasy.org/recipes Then move on to eliminating milk, cheese, yoghurt, icecream, butter making sure to increase calcium-rich foods (sesame seeds-tahini, sunflower seeds, dark green leafies). Lastly phase out eggs. It's not that hard. You will feel more alive, more energetic, healthier and happier knowing you are making a positive contribution to the planet. In this way you will be an example for all around you. If you can't or won't do it, how can we expect others to? How can we turn this disastrous situation around if we don't all adopt a plant-based diet?

Dear Planning Department, It has come to my attention that Leda Development has been given the go-ahead to wipe out the habitat of an important (and one of the precious few remaining) Koala colony at Kings Forest and Cobaki Lakes. It is deeply concerning to myself and many people that I know that our way of life and national treasures of our own and future generations should be set aside for commercial gain. What about quality of life for *all* Australians? Shouldn't we revere our unique and beautiful wildlife and allow future generations to enjoy these Australian Native animals? Surely the planning department is full of bright minds who could find ways that we can enjoy a great lifestyle while preserving our precious wildlife. Shouldn't we focus upon wildlife corridors and protected areas so that we can all enjoy seeing Koalas for many years to come? Please do not allow this atrocity against Australian Life to go ahead. Stop Leda Development from stealing this Australian treasure (Koalas) from us and our children. Why not apply your resources and talented people to be a shining example to other states and departments that you can take up the challenge of balancing human lifestyle with wildlife preservation - and show the true Heart of Australia. Don't sacrifice our battling Koalas for short term commercial gain. Make Australia Proud. Be a Leader and kick out Leda. Your Sincerely, Tanwyn Eacott Editorial comment: Thanks, Tanwyn. Please let us know how they respond. - JS

Dairy exports make Australia one of the world’s largest exporter of virtual water, despite it being one of the driest continents on the planet!. Dairy production takes place in all states, but it is particularly significant in Victoria, where more than 60 per cent of all dairy farming enterprises are located. The number of dairy farms has declined steadily over recent decades, but the industry is trending towards larger and intensive farming. Approximately 569 GL/year is transferred across from the Snowy River Basin and released to the Murray River upstream of Hume Reservoir. Fifty percent of this water is allocated to the Victorian River Murray diverters. The other fifty percent is allocated to New South Wales. Dairying is the heaviest user of irrigated water, often requiring irrigated pasture. In 2007 Japanese beverage giant Kirin acquired dairy processor National Foods for $2.8 billion. The emergence of large multi-national companies as significant players in the Australian dairy industry was forcing producers to bulk up to larger farms. Dairy Australia's managing director Mike Ginnivan said the industry would remain a major user of water in the Murray Darling Basin for at least the next 10 years and would necessitate continued improvements in water use efficiency. By banning the export of dairy products and reducing our own consumption we may have a chance to save our ailing river systems!

Good on the crew of Sea Shepherd's vessel "Steve Irwin" for declaring their intentions to push for attempted murder charges against the Japanese whalers who sliced their boat Ady Gil in two! Kevin Rudd has blatantly broken numerous promises about stopping Japan's illegal whaling, and by his inaction with full knowledge of what was going on, makes him and our Government guilty too, if the charges prove to be true. If one knows of crimes being committed, yet does nothing, they are an accessory after the fact. An accessory after the fact is a person who assists the principal in the first degree to avoid detection, apprehension or conviction after the offence has been committed. Researchers from the University of Auckland in New Zealand, tested 120 pieces of meat, blubber and skin purchased in 1998 and 1999 from Japanese retail shops and fish markets. The tests uncovered products from three protected species - Fin, Sei and Sperm whales, as well as other irregularities. Trading in wildlife, and endangered species, is also an offence under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) of which Australia is party to. Are there special privileges for Japan that makes them immune from international laws, even attempted murder?

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.

My, Search for Truth, we really are being a tad pedantic, aren't we? All the points that have been raised about how TINY the competition between kangaroo and livestock grazing is and all the DEMERITS of the livestock industry yet still you harp on and on. Focussing on minutiae such as the use of words 'small' versus 'no' in no way minimises our very important contributions to the argument. Vivienne and I both qualified that the research we quoted says kangaroos' grazing pressure is small - not non-existent. Why do you keep on about this when we have clarified this point? Shall I repeat myself? THE IMPACT OF KANGAROOS ON THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IS MINIMAL. Vivienne quoted research showing that even in drought the competition is 'small' and only in extreme conditions will kangaroos eat the food of sheep and cows and thereby pose a threat to them (and to the kangaroos detriment). Irrespective of whether I quote 1% or 1-8% or 8%, the fact remains, kangaroos have small pressure on the entire industry. It's true that I quoted the lower end of kangaroo grazing pressure that doesn't make me deceitful. It's not like I made the figure up, at least I quoted a valid government website and valid scientific studies from CSIRO. It's also true that I said that there is no grazing competition between sheep and kangaroos, which I corrected as meaning no 'substantial' competition. Frankly I don't think this is a big deal. You accuse me of being deceitful and without integrity (even though I quoted highly credible government sources) in a futile attempt to dismiss the issue which revolves around the potential extinction of our national icon. I can't help but wonder, why are you so protective of this industry? Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? The far more important issues such as "why are we experiencing drought - could it be somehow related to the livestock industry, thanks to deforestation, desertification, excess water use, soil erosion and so on?" - are lost in the argument. Also lost in the argument is the far bigger unanswered question of 'WHO IS THE REAL PEST? MAN, SHEEP, COW OR KANGAROO? Who has done the most damage to the land in the last 200 years? So what is the big deal 'Search for Truth' who appears to be so intent on undermining our arguments? Is this a diversionary tactic and are you really employed by the kangaroo industry (hence the secrecy of your real name - so much for truth and integrity!)? It certainly doesn't look like you are any kind of friend of the kangaroos.

Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645

Kangaroos are original Australian animals. They have existed in Australia for at least 16 million years and have co-evolved and co-existed with their ecology and other species to live in perfect harmony the Australian context. "Search the Truth", please read the references provided. We should not have to justify the existence of kangaroos, our iconic native animals, or justify their food and water consumption! This is their ancient home, their rangelands are here, and they are perfect Aussie animals! Why deny them food? The problem is the enormous number of livestock, irrigation, over population of non-indigenous humans, our drought and then climate change. Kangaroos are becoming more visible as food dries up and then they come into towns. It is a sad reflection on 220 years of European settlement that such well adjusted native, frugal consumers and soft-footed gentle animals, are suffering and being blamed for environmental damage and for eating pasture! They can't be denied food or a living, surely! Maybe the question should be reversed - are livestock consuming pasture and drying up our waterways, trampling our native grasses and soils, causing deforestation and polluting rivers? I think the answer is obvious!

The issue I raised in my comment (10-1-10) was in relation to truth and factual reporting, not about comparative populations of species, merits of kangaroos nor did I provide any argument for or against kangaroo culls.

The comments from Menkit (11-1-10) and Vivienne (12-1-10) both frequent contributors to candobetter do not in any way validate claims that kangaroos do not compete with livestock for food much less identify ANY published research that does so. At best their references indicate a possible small level of competition.

I assume both provide diversionary arguments, to avoid the issue. I expect both have the capacity to recognise that use of absolute and definitive terms like ‘no’ and ‘not’( in the context of grazing competition) is far more persuasive than highly subjective terms such as ‘small’ or ‘some’, but despite knowing this and the lack of merit use the terms anyway.

In yet another departure from the truth Menkit writes, “Then this website shows that grazing pressure of kangaroos is only 1%.......” but the website in question shows nothing of the sort, the kangaroo grazing pressure of 1% that she mentions, in its true context represents the lowest end of an estimated range with the higher end an estimated 8% of a national average, I have no doubt Menkit is aware of this fact.

Whilst some may argue that the end justifies the means, I consider the desired ending is far more frequently compromised when the means employed is to flagrantly misrepresent fact.

I am interested in many topics discussed on candobetter.org but have no interest in lies or deceit. The mission statement of candobetter.org begins “To encourage ordinary people…….”, if this encouragement is to be instigated through deceit then evidently candobetter.org is not an appropriate place to seek truth.

In my opinion the time has never been more appropriate for purveyors of this ‘no competition’ crap to put up or shut up.

Billionaire property developer Harry Triguboff believes Australia's population will soar to 55 million by 2050, but hopes it will reach 100 million. Obviously he will not be responsible for the mess, and will be living comfortably and with privileges on one his secluded palatial properties while the rest of us grovel for mortgages for the last apartments in outer city sprawl! Mr Triguboff believes that the figure of 35 million by 2050 is too conservative. "I don't think there will be 35 million but about 55 million," he said on The 7.30 Report. Most people do not understand exponential growth at a rate of 2.1 % growth. However his arithmetic is correct! The (inevitable?) 35 million by 2050 is being touted to soften us up! Any concerns are just brushed aside: "Our agriculture has to be huge. Our desalination must be fantastic. Our rivers must flow the right way. It will all have to be developed." Yeah, he and he and his cronies will be those benefiting and will give support to our major political parties. Who will pay the cost for all this infrastructure and increasing costs as each person has less share of natural resources? Us of course. This man and others like him are simply parasites and social psychopaths!

I don't know about that. Have you noticed that, since Brigitte Bardot got the EU to ban seal products the seal population has exploded in Canada and Alaska and the harp seal is seeking revenge. There are hardly any humans left. The streets are full of barking seals and the smell of rotting fish. The seals are making their way as we speak towards Washington and the Whitehouse. The airports are paralysed with people trying to get away - to Haiti or anywhere It will be the end of civilisation as we know it. Can you help us here, Mr Coutron? Forget the kangaroos. It's the seals that are the real threat. Ahgghhh! And they're wearing white coats.

We went to Wonthaggi on the weekend and saw the protest signs, the wonderful Bass beaches and the start of the construction of the desal plant. We visited the pristine ocean beach that will be polluted by the output and the brine. There are 6 wind-generators, tokens to our government's "offset" for the amount of electricity that this monster will use. It is pure tokenism and absurd that these few wind generators could possibly compensate for the energy used! The desalination plant will lock us into a high impact and expensive future and pull us further away from renewable energy and into high emissions. Wonthaggi region doesn't need the water - it is for Melbourne! According to a local, the desal plant will use the mains electricity grid, then use coal-powered generation which will only last for about 28 years. This supply will finish and then it will be powered by a nuclear power plant! Mr Brumby has admitted that our water bills are likely to double in 5 years. This is our nuclear future, something our governments are quiet on! Desalination plants are not a sustainable water solutions for Victoria or Australia, but our government's effort to sustain endless population growth - the infrastructure for which we will all be paying for.