What A Bunch Of Hypocrites The Organization Greenpeace Is
By pyewacket
@pyewacket (43903)
United States
March 29, 2008 10:04pm CST
A fellow MyLotter and she knows who she is, once did a discussion about the Hypocrisy Of the animal activists group, PETA...okay..no problem there..while they aren't saints, have a lot of controversy behind them, some think are too radical, but at least to a certain point they do at least bring to the world's attention of the cruelties done to the animal world.
Okay, this isn't about PETA though, but another famous animal rights activist group that I had a real high regard for....Greenpeace. But then I read something that made my head spin and say, WTF!!!
Another MyLotter, a friend of mine from Australia brought it to my attention of something that maybe not too many people are aware of...the ongoing slaughter of one of their native animals...the kangaroo.
I came across this article...in which it states that back in 1986, Greenpeace was all against the slaughter of the kangaroos..and made a film, entitled "Goodbye to Joey"
Here's the article I found..I purposely underlined a few points here
(Quote)
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_071011_1.html
Greenpeace Calls for Kangaroo Slaughter
Greenpeace is saying "Goodbye to Joey" with a bullet.
The one consistent thing these days about the Greenpeace Foundation is its inconsistency. Back in 1986, Greenpeace produced a film about the commercial slaughter of the kangaroos in Australia. The film was called Goodbye to Joey, and it denounced the wholesale slaughter of kangaroos. According to Australian Greenpeace spokesperson Trevor Daley, Greenpeace opposed the commercial trade of kangaroo products on ecological and moral grounds and stated that, "on a purely moral basis, we find it nauseating."
That was then, but today Greenpeace is actually calling for the commercial slaughter of millions of kangaroos as a solution to . . . global warming! Now Greenpeace energy campaigner Mark Wakeham is urging Aussies to eat kangaroo to help reduce land clearing and the release of methane gas. "It is one of the lifestyle changes we can make," Mr. Wakeham said. "Changing our meat consumption habits is a small way to make an impact." Obviously, Mr. Wakeham is not a vegetarian, which of course is the more positive way of changing meat consumption habits.
The proposal to commercially slaughter kangaroos is contained in a report, Paths to a Low-Carbon Future, commissioned and released by Greenpeace. Roughly three million kangaroos are killed and commercially sold for meat each year. They are shot between the eyes at night with high-powered guns. Greenpeace wishes to see this number doubled. Australians eat only about a third of the 30 million kilograms of 'roo meat produced annually. This "delicacy" is exported to dozens of countries and is most popular in Germany, France, and Belgium.
The Greenpeace report has renewed calls for the Australian state of Victoria to lift a ban on harvesting kangaroos for food. Kangaroo meat presently sold in Victoria is imported from out of the state. The commercial kangaroo meat industry has seized the Greenpeace report to strengthen its demand to remove the kangaroo slaughter ban in Victoria. Way to go, Greenpeace - saving the Earth by killing Skippy!The Australian kangaroo population has been cut in half over the past five years because of excessive drought. A major commercial slaughter is hardly going to be beneficial to this diminished population.
The Greenpeace report by Dr. Mark Diesendorf, from the University of New South Wales, states that greenhouse gas emissions need to be slashed by at least a third by 2020 in order to avoid a climate change catastrophe. One of his recommendations is reducing beef consumption and increasing kangaroo meat production. "There's a small sub-set of environmentalists who see the kangaroo as a cuddly animal which should be left alone. They are entitled to their view, but more and more people are moving towards eating it,'' said Dr. Diesendorf.
[u]What is Greenpeace thinking? Or are they thinking at all? Greenpeace is actually calling for a massive slaughter of a wildlife species for commercial purposes. It is bad enough that Greenpeace no longer opposes the mass slaughter of harp seals in Canada. It is tragic that Greenpeace continues to support the trophy hunting of polar bears in Alaska and Northern Canada. But to openly support the largest massacre of any wildlife species on the planet is going beyond the bounds of acceptability. Has Greenpeace received a large contribution from the kangaroo meat industry? What would possess them to issue a call for a kangaroo slaughter?
[/u]
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Founder and President Captain Paul Watson was also a co-founder of Greenpeace. "I feel a little like Dr. Frankenstein, having helped to create this green mean monster. There can be no justification for this insane proposal." Al Johnson, who founded Greenpeace USA and was a member of the film crew in 1984 that made Goodbye to Joey was shocked when he heard this proposal. "This is inexcusable. How can we produce a passionate film denouncing the horrific kangaroo slaughter and then advocate the mass slaughter of kangaroos a few years later?" "It is interesting that Dr. Diesendorf does not mention vegetarianism as a solution to global warming, nor does he mention the need to reduce human populations or to curb our excessive consumption of fish," said Captain Watson.
"Instead, he has chosen to become Dr. Death for the 'roos and is advocating the mass slaughter of a wild native animal that has been a positive member of the Australian ecosystem for tens of thousands of years. And he dismisses those who disagree with him as a 'small subset of environmentalists.' Dr. Diesendorf is going to discover that opposition to this Auschwitz approach to solving climate change through mass killing will be opposed by a great many people."
Please contact Dr. Diesendorf and voice your opposition to the mass commercial slaughter of kangaroos for dinner. Tell Greenpeace that far from being a member of a "small sub-set," you are a true environmentalist, and it may choose to push this plan, but not in your name or the name of environmentalism...."
So gee, Greenpeace not only sanctions the slaughter of kangaroos, no longer takes interest in the baby seal hunts and has a blind eye to trophy hunting of polar bears...gee,....way to go Greenpeace..How FRIGGIN' disappointing..I really WAS a fan of this animal activist group..uh, no more.
Now maybe some of you who are in Australia can enlighten me....aren't there a lot of land areas that aren't inhabited..still wild???...couldn't they maybe transport many of the kangaroos to these areas instead?? Just a thought
11 people like this
16 responses
@lilaclady (28206)
• Australia
30 Mar 08
yeh i had actually been thinking of leaving something in my will to these people but I think they have let the kangaroo down, I just don't know why all the animals in this world are being slaughtered to make way for man, I think it is about time man realized that they have just about exhausted the earths resourses for themselves and have left nothing for other animals I hate to say it but i think it is about time we started thinking of limiting the birth rate of the human race, animals may have become a pest to man, but they are simply trying to survive with what little we have left them, i think a rethink of how we are breeding and leaving nothing for anything else, like as if we have sole rights to this earth....well i don't think we do....

@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
30 Mar 08
I believe in China there is a law of not having more than one child isn't there?? Yes, that might eventually had to become a worldwide law then...our species is overpopulating the earth anyway and we are encroaching upon the animal world more and more so animals just plain won't have anywhere to inhabit..by the way...I was thinking of you when I started this discussion after what you said in my seals discussion
3 people like this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
30 Mar 08
I really wasn't aware of the killing of the kangaroos until you mentioned it lilaclady..and certainly not aware of the koala problem either. Let me get this straight though...in Australia are they basically doing what they've been doing to the South American rainforest?? Destroying the land and trees there?? Why? There are so many land areas uninhabited, at least by man aren't there?
And yes, you're right..the idea of wanting to turn koalas into a BBQ feast is sickening.
primalmom....Let's be realistic here..the plan they have in China does seem to be working in only allowing one child families but doesn't necessarily mean a "slaughter of unborn humans"...I mean what about women who purposely have child after child after child here in America just to get government benefits...like where I live??..is that right?
3 people like this
@lilaclady (28206)
• Australia
30 Mar 08
In Australia we have townships, farms, and further out dessert, the townships are spreading so fast and the farmers complaing that the kangaroos dare to eat their crops and such, man leaves little choice to the kangaroos. The koalas have a different problem they only eat eucalyptus leaves and certain ones at that, well man cuts them down to make their townships but i saw on TV just the other day, a township that is building their houses amongst these trees and living quite happily with the koalas so it proves if man does really try there is room for all if we just give a little...
2 people like this
@winterose (39887)
• Canada
30 Mar 08
what an incredible piece you have written you should sent it to your local paper and your prime minister.
3 people like this

@winterose (39887)
• Canada
30 Mar 08
sorry I thought you were in australia,
but still that piece should be published.
2 people like this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
30 Mar 08
Thank you winterose...LOL..we don't have a prime minister here...just a jerk named Bush for President...

3 people like this
@winterose (39887)
• Canada
30 Mar 08
oH i am sorry I thought you were in australia, but still that piece should be published.
I will give you one of the sites I use,
submit@medhunters.com
2 people like this

@friendship (2084)
• Canada
30 Mar 08
I hate seeing animal cruelty. If Australia has many Kangaroos, why wouldn't they export them to other countries? I love Kangaroos and I also love Kaola. They are cute animals. I believe that other countries would like to have those animals in their wild areas or a part of their zoo's collections.
I think it is better to put a medicine into those Kangaroos (it is like a family plan) instead of killing them.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
I don't necessarily think though transporting a lot of kangaroos to other countries would be the answer either unfortunately...then you might wind up with an overpopulation of them there as well
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
2 Apr 08
Are you maybe suggesting the same principle of TNR that is done with overpopulations of feral cats..that is Trap, Neuter then Release? Could be an alternative then
@teapotmommommerced (10359)
• United States
30 Mar 08
Pye you make some good points in your discussion. We have to look at he whole picture and not just one thing that causes global warming.....
I think when man gets involved with the animal kingdom we tend to screw it up. We either let it go to extint or near extintion or we go the opposite and we get over run with the population. There has to be a happy medium.
[/b]Peta and Greenpeace[b]organizations tend to go overboard with their beliefs in my opinion. Greenpeace has done a lot of good but some of their tactics are so wrong.
Peta is just too way out there for me to even comment on. I have only heard the bad or radital things peta has done so I will not comment on that group.
I agree with you why not move some of those Kangaroos to an area that needs deforestation?
I think when man gets involved with the animal kingdom we tend to screw it up. We either let it go to extint or near extintion or we go the opposite and we get over run with the population. There has to be a happy medium.
[/b]Peta and Greenpeace[b]organizations tend to go overboard with their beliefs in my opinion. Greenpeace has done a lot of good but some of their tactics are so wrong.
Peta is just too way out there for me to even comment on. I have only heard the bad or radital things peta has done so I will not comment on that group.
I agree with you why not move some of those Kangaroos to an area that needs deforestation?@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Well I know how a lot of people feel about PETA, but I was really surprised about hearing this about Greenpeace...like what next? Are we going to hear some hypocracy about HSUS or ASPCA?? Greenpeace has a whole big thing about how Kimberly-Clark uses "virgin" paper products from trees cut down in the Boreal forests...much in the same manner as cutting down all the rainforest...so I think it's a bit hypocritical to sanction killing kangaroos then, no??
1 person likes this
@creative_angel312 (390)
• United States
30 Mar 08
Wow...It sounds like Greenpeace has had a change of leadership and loyalties. So basically what they're saying is let's kill all the kangaroos because the emmitting too much methane gas? Huh? What about everyone else and all the other animals. Should we run out with our forks and knives and eat them too?
3 people like this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
30 Mar 08
I just think it's plain hypocritical of Greenpeace to make any kind of suggestion about killing any species of animals..thought they were an organization to save and help them
2 people like this
@Perry123 (363)
•
31 Mar 08
Nearly ALL these organisations are hypocrites.
you are no doubt familiar with this:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
what you may not be aware of is that all these organisations are actually money making scams; formed to take advantage of the hard of thinking.
Check them out here:
http://www.activistcash.com
Greenpeace did one of the most outrageous crimes aginst native poples ever in the 1970s when they ruined the economy of inuit people in Greenland by protesting against their seal trade. while the top bods in the organisation apologised for that, you will see from their fourms the ignorance is still there. They may claim to support subsistence hunting but there is a limted number of sealskin mukluks you can wear yourself...you have to sell them. The USA thanks to Greenpeace still has an embargo on sealskin; and still native people the world over suffer by the actions of media and other animal rights organisations.
Someone has yet to explain the rational difference between using a cow and using a seal; as the Inuit like to point out:
http://www.niyc.ca/comment.php?comment.news.218
as long as an animal is not endangered sustainable use seems to me to be okay...after all the Inuit have been using and trading seal for 20 000 years without damaging its numbers.
People forget man is part of the eco system and a predator.
it is really rather ironic that the main threat to animals and habitat is presented by "alternatives" to animals. All synthetic clothing for example is made from petro chemicals....damaging to animal habitat from extraction to transport to refining to pollution to global markting to disposal and landfill...where it continues to damag because it is not bio degradable.
Even alernatives to meat are damaging. Argentina's rainforest has been devastated and animals like jaguar who survived centuries of being used for fur now on the brink of extincton.
The real issues are being masked by these organisations....who are often supported by dubious organisations like the Tides Foundation....who give them huge tax free donations from global corporations. The very people engaged in habitat destruction.
It is not a new thing..."animal rights" was the idea you may be surprised to learn, of the Nazis. Anyone sympathtic to animla rights should read this. You may then realise that your moral supriority can lead you up dangerous paths:
http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?494
If you really care, get with an organisation who have conservation as the main principle. An organistaion for example like the WWF which is not against things like sustainable hunting and have had remarkable success in conservation by inititaives in Africa and siberia with hunting as a sustainable economic activity.
The main principle being that if man needs an animal then he will protect its habitat. Well it's true that the fox is the most hunted predator by man ever ...whether for fur or foxhunting...and yet "strangely" the most successful.
you may want to look at this:http://www.furcouncil.com/ecological.aspx
now that is the campaign of fashion designer Paula Lishman who is married to famous Conservationist Bill Lishman before you quetion it as propaganda from the fur trade.
So what is all this you have seen on you tube of th "cruelty" of fur trade?
well this may throw some light on it:http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm
See the animal rights industry has a long history of making snuff movies to make you think things are cruel.
So in answer to the kangaroo question. Well nobody likes the thought of "joey" being hunted. But, if they need to be managed anyway, it seems logical to put them to good use.
As for th ida of 2shipping" kangaroos elsewhere...this can damage delicate eco systems too. At some point when animals have no predator the ultimate end is starvation and disease themselves...as now is rapidly being learned the hard way in the uk with regard to deer herds. Of course the hunts warned them of this before the ban and now the herds are suffering.
As for the crticism of cattle causing greenhouse gases quite frankly the idea is ridiculous. Millions of buffalo used to roam the plains of the USA wihout much problem and there is not a lot of difference. In fact, much of the so called evidence was used to persuade Argentina to turn to soya production and away from their traditional cattle industry.
when all is said and done we have to look at what we are doing to animal habitats. The case for C02 emissions cauing probems is far from established; but in any case habitat damage for products like soya and palm oil and petro chemicals really must cease. Animals on the other hand, if managed well, are ...like it or not...an infinitely rnewable rsource. And one for which for the vast majority of the history of our species, was the main resource. They didn't fare too badly until we found "altrnatives". It is those alternatives that now push many animals toward mass extinctions...and we have only been at it about 50 years. Compared with maybe a million of using animals for food clothes and energy.
So shame on organisations like PETA Greenpeace and IFAW for masking this crime.... while lining their own pockets by making you feel sorry for cuddly animals.
Back to nature should mean just that....that is the unpalatable truth that the urban west...creator of animal rights ideology and simulatneously dreadful habitat damage....must learn.

@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
2 Apr 08
Perry it's very admirable that you wrote such a long reply to my discussion and I thank you for that. And a lot to read here!
First of the bat...I try to balance myself between both animal rights groups such as ASPCA, Friends of Animals, The Humane Society of the US, and yes PETA...while PETA is very extreme, they have at least alerted people to what's going on in the world about what mankind is doing to animals..I get numerous email alerts from ALL of them,not just PETA by the way. I also have alerts from conservation groups like WW, the Sierra Club, Ocean, Jacques Cousteau Society, and on and on.
Maybe one thing we can agree upon is that ALL these various groups did start out with good intentions and really wanted to make a dent in the world and bring an awareness of the destructiveness we humans have done all these eons of years against the planet, nature and animals that inhabit the earth..and of course the various groups that bring an awareness of the cruelties that mankind inflicts on mankind itself
It's unfortunate however, that many of these same groups that started out with good intentions and noble grandiose ideals have gone on the wayside of their original intentions..can we agree on that?
What I also find hypocritical about Greenpeace for instance is that they are condoning the killing off of kangaroos...yet in one of their other campaigns are urging people to stop using Kimberly Clark products as the company cuts down trees in the Boreal forest, and the "wood" is turned into paper products such as tissues and toilet paper...oh, so they are against cutting down of trees (which yes I agree to that) but sanction the slaughter of animals...isn't that kind of a oxymoron paradox??
You're right that NO animal activist group or conservation group should resort to "terroristic" means or tactics to get their message across, but in a world that unfortunately seems to only take notice or understand things by violence in general we ourselves created that problem and why such groups DO resort to such tactics.
@Perry123 (363)
•
31 Mar 08
You may want to rad a few unpalatable things about Paul Watson too...he is just a basic terrorist :
http://www.activistcsh.com/biography.cfm/bid/3370
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/347
And check out ome of th sick things animal rights leader say. for example, most of them want to completly extrminate cats and dogs from existence:
http://www.animalrights.net/quotes.htm
These people are not animal lovers....they admit that. What they are is misanthropes.
One of thir godfathers, Peter Singer is a bio ethics professor who approves of eugnics..another nazi idea:
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/10/peter-singer-supports-eugenics.html
These people are fascists and terrorists ...distance yourslf from thir lunaic idas and get involvd with the IUCN (world conservation union) and the WWF who truly have animal conservation at the heart of their programme.
http://www.iucn.org
http://www.org
Peopl trying desprately to save nature rather than spending your money on propaganda and supporting fascistic terrorism.
What else can you do?
Maybe give a loving home to an animal like this before it ends up in the hands of organsations that some give support to get hold of it:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm
1 person likes this

@Stiletto (4579)
•
30 Mar 08
Hi Pyewacket - actually the findings of the report commissioned by Greenpeace were that Australians could dramatically reduce their carbon footprint by eating less beef and more of their local wildlife - ie.kangaroos. The report claims that cutting beef consumption by 20% (which will mean there are less cattle reared) will reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 15 megatons by 2020. That's a big reduction. Kangaroos apparently produce very little methane unlike cattle which produce loads of it. So what Greenpeace are advocating is substituting cattle rearing for kangaroo farming because it's more environmentally friendly. Bad news for kangaroos but there again good news for cows I guess.
Of course they could advocate vegetarianism instead and suggest that Australians stop eating meat completely. I doubt that suggestion would be given much heed by most meat-eating Australians though. Instead what they are suggesting is a relatively small lifestyle change by substituting eating one animal instead of another. I'm not surprised that some people are upset by it because a lot of us don't think of kangaroos as an animal that should be eaten. I guess cows are unlucky in that they're not as cute as a kangaroo so people tend not to get so concerned about eating them. I'm not a vegetarian but I think I would be a bit squeamish about eating kangaroo meat.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out the reasoning behind this because saying that Greenpeace are putting forward an "insane proposal" is not true. It actually makes sense from an environmental point of view although it is of course not good news for kangaroos!
@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
30 Mar 08
another sad doings going on.
I can sort of see taking some if over populated or to feed the poor in thqat country but to ship it out of the country to make big profits is awful and why thousands and why just joeys?
and I am sure there is ots of open lands there to take them too. also .
this man is back paddling.
I hate seeing massive killings like this no since to it. I do beleive if ya kill it ya eat it and never thought of eatting roo.
1 person likes this

@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
31 Mar 08
no its no their fault its mans. I get tired of them builing here for they do take over alot of places that wildlife lives even scropians and th4en you have some one buy a house and complain that they have scorpians or road runners or even coyotes in their house or yard .
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
To my mind it's not the kangaroos fault, or any animals fault for that matter when we, mankind has taken over the habitats of animals and like where are they supposed to go?

@Eskimo (2315)
•
31 Mar 08
I'm really at a loss about what to say, and also confused. Are they advocating killing the kangaroos because they contribute to climate change by producing greenhouse gases? or to stop people producing cattle and eat the kangaroos instead? I know that cattle produce methane (a greenhouse gas), but unaware if kangaroos do as well.
The EcoNazies and 'enemies of the earth' probably cause more global warming and contribute more to climate change with their (mainly) insane ideas than most other groups.


1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
2 Apr 08
Well whatever they are advocating it just seems plain dumb and against their supposed principles of saving the environment and wildlife...I had thought that, that was what Greenpeace was all about, not saying "Okay folks, time to kill the kangaroos" Next they will be against saving the whales which was their big thing
1 person likes this
@Perry123 (363)
•
2 Apr 08
Rationally there is no difference between cattle and kangarro and soometimes animals have too be culled for their own benefit and the benefit of other animals. Man is an animal too remember and a predator and this is what nature evolved us to do.
No other animal thinks twice about killing another animal and the only reason we have that luxury is because those of us who live in cities have all our food supplied without seeing how it is produced. So we have become squeamish abou meat for example. But would you rather the farmers there turned to a crop that gave food to vegans and dstroyed the kangaroo habitat, or drilled for oil; or built cities and factories there therfore causing them to become extinct, or through using them sustainably protected their habitat forever?
Because that is the real choice.
@p3halliwel2005 (3156)
• Philippines
31 Mar 08
Oh my eating kangaroos is a bad idea that greenpeace guy wanted..Who would want to hurt such animals. Isn't pig, chicken, and turkey enough? Why Kangaroos?I haven't seen one yet and I would want to see one in existence still. Stupid decision greenpeace is installing. Animals should not be eaten.They have lives and they hurt too..They also have families...like we do have ours. That's so totally disappointing..I didn't read your whole discussion because I wanted to say what I feel already after seeing that term eat Kangaroos..not nice...not nice at all.

1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
And what makes them think that people are going to rush out and want to buy kangaroo meat to eat anyway?
@moonshadow68 (723)
• United States
30 Mar 08
Pye,
My hubby just spent a year in Australia studying and he said much like deer here, 'roos are a problem. Much like the feral cat problem in the U.S., maybe if we caught some, spayed them and released them we might be able to address the overpopulation issue.
The reality is that we have tampered so much with nature that the native predators are gone and that leaves it to humans to manage the population. I know its not the message you want to hear from a group like Greenpeace, but they are at least recommending that the 'roos be slaughtered and used for food rather than just slaughtered.
And, I think I read somewhere that 'roos are better than cows as a source of red meat--less polluting and less destructive. Some of us, who choose not to be vegetarians, still want to treat the environment kindly. I buy bison from a local producer who has made sure that his herd eats native prairie grass (which he planted and maintains) some of the time, but its not always available. Taking the nuisance factor out of the 'roo population and helping them serve a purpose is a good thing.
Also, I'm not sure where the idea that Greenpeace is an animal rights organization came from, but that's not exactly their place in activism. Greenpeace does fight agaisnt many forms of animal slaughter-- i.e. whaling, but their higher calling is the preservation of the environment and prevention of nuclear war. Unfortunately, due in part to man's actions, the environment needs protecting from the too many roos.
I would endorse your idea for a kangaroo relocation program, but much of the unused alnd in Australia is that way for a reason--it is very unhospitable and likely if moved there the 'roos would die of starvation or dehydration. Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the 'roos harvested and eaten then die from overpopulation problems like widespread disease and starvation.
I grew up in Colorado where deer hunting has to be done on a regular basis or nature takes its course and the deer die in much more cruel means than a shotgun shell--wasting diseases and starvation are common when overpopulation hits.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
Okay just for a moment say it is better to kill off the 'roos for meat production..what is to prevent that sooner or later some genius cooks up a plan to turn it into a farm factory type business?? If you are aware of how farm factories are run then the life of the animal is one of cramped space, and treated unbearably inhumanely.
It is unfortunate to say the least that mankind has created the problem to begin with by encroaching upon so much of the land areas of the animals and have developed it...there has to be a better sense of cooperation down the line, no?
@byfaithonly (10698)
• United States
30 Mar 08
This is sad but I can't say I'm surprised - I think a lot of groups that once had good intentions have gone by the way side and are looking more at the money aspect than anything else - animal rights groups as well as human rights ones.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
True, after awhile a lot of the animal or conservationist organizations begin just having dollar signs rather than sticking to their original ideas to help the world in general
@nancyrowina (3850)
•
30 Mar 08
I'm shocked to read that I have in the past supported Green Peace and this just sounds ridiculous, there are thousands if not millions of species on this planet that produce methane gas including us. Anyone who has a problem with any species could make this point and use it as an excuse to slaughter it and I'm saddened Green Peace has said it. It's good to read that some of the founding members are speaking out against it too though, at least they haven't all gone mad.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
31 Mar 08
If you want to hear something really bizarre..on the Greenpeace website is a campaign for people to stop using products by Kimberly Clark, makers of products like Scott Toilet Paper and Tissues..as they say that Kimberly Clark uses "virgin" wood from the Boreal Forest which is rapidly diminishing..so they want to save the forest but sanction killing the kangaroos...now I ask you..does that make sense??
@posham (1236)
• Philippines
30 Mar 08
i agree that livestocks and animals are said to be the number 1 producer of methane gas which cause global warming. but i don't condone the solution of killing specific species for it. because if there's a choice of the elimination of the most pollutant causing specie on the planet, then hands down, we should eliminate humans instead.
1 person likes this
@jpso138 (7851)
• Philippines
30 Mar 08
This seems a complete twist of what they are supposed to be doing. I have a high respect for such organization and it is sad to note that this is happening. I value the effort of helping and saving our environment. But surely there must be another way to do it. I guess that they are making a mistake by this move.
@Hatley (163772)
• Garden Grove, California
25 Apr 08
Green peace isbehind the kanagroo slaughter? I am so diasappointed as I had thought that Greenpeace was all for preserving wild life not slaughtering animals. this is awful.I used to support Green Peace but not now after hearing about the kangaroos being killed. Is there open areas where kangaroos could be moved andleft to carry on their liveds in peace. As I understoodthere is a large area of land that is open and unpoplulated where the surplus? kangaroos could be relocated? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmml
















