Dingo Pups For Sale

[mixeduppup]

the internet is so painful to explain anything - i don't think dingoes fall into the same category as breeds bred for generation and selected specifically to go against all of nature and fight members of their own species to the death - i am not retarded - i in general agree with a limited form of BSL - which would include limited ownership of the dingo - I DO NOT MEAN ALL DINGOES SHOULD BE DESTRYOYED - I DO NOT EQUATE DINGOES AND PIT BULLS - i am refferring to ownership of these animals as pets. if no one owned one as a pet and they flourished in their natural environment in a protected parcel of land eg national park away from clashes with land owners so they don'e get shot, die painfully in traps that maim them, die horribly from 10-80, cross breed with domestic dogs becuase irresponsible owners can't control their pets....etc, etc then i would personally be happy.

That is never going to happen.

[asal]

Gee, thanks for taking the trouble. Yes it’s very hard.

I for one was aghast when even the first pit bull was allowed into the country. The feral’s already had their status dogs. Adding these guys as well as the other's that have been named, to the gene pool was a disaster in the making and it has proven to be just that.

There is no fix now, it’s never going to be just the dangerous ones targeted .

I have no idea what solution could be found.

As it is, the peta/rspca (rspca sent out letter's to all members warning that Peta intended infiltrating and taking over) faction intends the whole solution will be no canines of any breed let alone x bred’s.

The war on pedigrees once won, it is being won, make no mistake about that.

Just look at the falling numbers of registered breeders. Once they have been taken care of it will be every canine targeted next for elimination.

Find me a vet who does not advocate desexing of all that enter their surgery?

There is no encouragement for anyone to breed.

Seems they don't twig, once there are no breeders they are out of a job within the lifespan of those left?

As I understand it, there is now legislation either in place or being drafted (cant remember) that "Hoarding" is now a legal justification for removing someones animals. the defination being more than X number on the property. Doesnt matter how good their condition.

How many have been told that anyone who breeds and does not keep any of their elder dogs are puppy farmers?

Those who do keep the previous generation, will fall under 'hoarders'.

Edited October 18, 2012 by asal

[orrd]

the internet is so painful to explain anything - i don't think dingoes fall into the same category as breeds bred for generation and selected specifically to go against all of nature and fight members of their own species to the death - i am not retarded - i in general agree with a limited form of BSL - which would include limited ownership of the dingo - I DO NOT MEAN ALL DINGOES SHOULD BE DESTRYOYED - I DO NOT EQUATE DINGOES AND PIT BULLS - i am refferring to ownership of these animals as pets. if no one owned one as a pet and they flourished in their natural environment in a protected parcel of land eg national park away from clashes with land owners so they don'e get shot, die painfully in traps that maim them, die horribly from 10-80, cross breed with domestic dogs becuase irresponsible owners can't control their pets....etc, etc then i would personally be happy.

That is never going to happen.

so do we all just stop trying evrytime something is difficult?? - seems a bit defeatist

[asal]

As for the original topic, people have kept Dingo's as pets ever since Australian settlement, with none of the related problems associated with the importation of the dog fighting breeds.

So I do not understand why they should be descriminated against, there has always only been a small segment of the population attracted to keeping a dingo and even if what would seem completely unsuitable hands, eg my neighbour,(they never fenced her in, she could go when or where she pleased in a completely suburban environment, since they lived on the corner of a main road, she early displayed the quick learning by never being run over, she preferred to stay home, patrol her home yard and to a lesser degree the surrounding footpath, visited only the nearer neighbours, there was never a problem with their dingo.

[orrd]

Gee, thanks for taking the trouble. Yes it’s very hard.

I for one was aghast when even the first pit bull was allowed into the country. The feral’s already had their status dogs. Adding these guys as well as the other's that have been named, to the gene pool was a disaster in the making and it has proven to be just that.

There is no fix now, it’s never going to be just the dangerous ones targeted .

I have no idea what solution could be found.

As it is, the peta/rspca (rspca sent out letter's to all members warning that Peta intended infiltrating and taking over) faction intends the whole solution will be no canines of any breed let alone x bred’s.

The war on pedigrees once won, it is being won, make no mistake about that.

Just look at the falling numbers of registered breeders. Once they have been taken care of it will be every canine targeted next for elimination.

Find me a vet who does not advocate desexing of all that enter their surgery?

There is no encouragement for anyone to breed.

Seems they don't twig, once there are no breeders they are out of a job within the lifespan of those left?

As I understand it, there is now legislation either in place or being drafted (cant remember) that "Hoarding" is now a legal justification for removing someones animals. the defination being more than X number on the property. Doesnt matter how good their condition.

How many have been told that anyone who breeds and does not keep any of their elder dogs are puppy farmers?

Those who do keep the previous generation, will fall under 'hoarders'.

would breeding less quantity nation-wide be so bad really???, you seem to have a babies and bathwater outlook imo - does anyone have actual figures on dogs destroyed thru RSPCA/pound etc in auss. - it is staggeringly high in north america, sounds mean but imo way too many breeders are breeding animals that should never have been born in the first place, i know that will outrage some but it is my honest opinion and not trying to stir and no i am not peta, far from it before anyone makes claims.

i think it should be harder for breeders - vets promoting blanket desexing is a crude but justifiable strategy - they get to mop up our mess way more than they should have to.

[mixeduppup]

the internet is so painful to explain anything - i don't think dingoes fall into the same category as breeds bred for generation and selected specifically to go against all of nature and fight members of their own species to the death - i am not retarded - i in general agree with a limited form of BSL - which would include limited ownership of the dingo - I DO NOT MEAN ALL DINGOES SHOULD BE DESTRYOYED - I DO NOT EQUATE DINGOES AND PIT BULLS - i am refferring to ownership of these animals as pets. if no one owned one as a pet and they flourished in their natural environment in a protected parcel of land eg national park away from clashes with land owners so they don'e get shot, die painfully in traps that maim them, die horribly from 10-80, cross breed with domestic dogs becuase irresponsible owners can't control their pets....etc, etc then i would personally be happy.

That is never going to happen.

so do we all just stop trying evrytime something is difficult?? - seems a bit defeatist

Alright, you go out and try to keep a wandering hunting dog on a particular protected parcel of land, when slow moving sheep are just over there, you take all the farmer's guns so that he can't shoot the dingoes when they don't notice that they've walked into unprotected land and kill his stock, you take all his dogs away so that there's never any chance of a dingo to dog mating and he can just bring the stock in without dogs. I forgot to add, you'll have to go out and collect all the feral dogs, even the ones that look like dingoes and blood test them individually to prove purity.

Edited October 18, 2012 by mixeduppup

[asal]

Do not mistake me.

That is definitely not what I believe is the right thing to do with a dingo kept as a pet.

She was an exceptional girl.

There could have been instead a very busy dingo, cleaning out every chook yard within travel distance. As well as every pet and wild bird and rabbit catchable or pen it could break into.

The same happens though with just about every other breed of dog allowed to roam. Certainly NOT just Dingo's.

My pet rabbit or her run wasn’t torn to pieces by the dingo next door.

That slaughter was done by the German shepherd from over the road. Only recently one of my neighbors’ goats were torn apart and still left alive by a German Shepherd who’s owner emphatically denied it ever left his yard.

He did not have much to say when it was shot some days later back inside the goats paddock when it returned for another go at them.

[asal]

the internet is so painful to explain anything - i don't think dingoes fall into the same category as breeds bred for generation and selected specifically to go against all of nature and fight members of their own species to the death - i am not retarded - i in general agree with a limited form of BSL - which would include limited ownership of the dingo - I DO NOT MEAN ALL DINGOES SHOULD BE DESTRYOYED - I DO NOT EQUATE DINGOES AND PIT BULLS - i am refferring to ownership of these animals as pets. if no one owned one as a pet and they flourished in their natural environment in a protected parcel of land eg national park away from clashes with land owners so they don'e get shot, die painfully in traps that maim them, die horribly from 10-80, cross breed with domestic dogs becuase irresponsible owners can't control their pets....etc, etc then i would personally be happy.

That is never going to happen.

so do we all just stop trying evrytime something is difficult?? - seems a bit defeatist

Alright, you go out and try to keep a wandering hunting dog on a particular protected parcel of land, when slow moving sheep are just over there, you take all the farmer's guns so that he can't shoot the dingoes when they don't notice that they've walked into unprotected land and kill his stock, you take all his dogs away so that there's never any chance of a dingo to dog mating and he can just bring the stock in without dogs.

Exactly.

This is the real world, national parks dont have dog proof fences, they dont even have kangaroo proof fences.

I remember counting 200 kangaroos in among a friends cattle one morning. His property was beside what????????? National Park.

Imagine the screaming if he then allowed his cattle to shift into the next neighbours for a feed now the National park kangaroo's had cleaned his place out of feed?

we dont live in the ideal world.

[orrd]

the internet is so painful to explain anything - i don't think dingoes fall into the same category as breeds bred for generation and selected specifically to go against all of nature and fight members of their own species to the death - i am not retarded - i in general agree with a limited form of BSL - which would include limited ownership of the dingo - I DO NOT MEAN ALL DINGOES SHOULD BE DESTRYOYED - I DO NOT EQUATE DINGOES AND PIT BULLS - i am refferring to ownership of these animals as pets. if no one owned one as a pet and they flourished in their natural environment in a protected parcel of land eg national park away from clashes with land owners so they don'e get shot, die painfully in traps that maim them, die horribly from 10-80, cross breed with domestic dogs becuase irresponsible owners can't control their pets....etc, etc then i would personally be happy.

That is never going to happen.

so do we all just stop trying evrytime something is difficult?? - seems a bit defeatist

Alright, you go out and try to keep a wandering hunting dog on a particular protected parcel of land, when slow moving sheep are just over there, you take all the farmer's guns so that he can't shoot the dingoes when they don't notice that they've walked into unprotected land and kill his stock, you take all his dogs away so that there's never any chance of a dingo to dog mating and he can just bring the stock in without dogs.

Exactly.

This is the real world, national parks dont have dog proof fences, they dont even have kangaroo proof fences.

I remember counting 200 kangaroos in among a friends cattle one morning. His property was beside what????????? National Park.

Imagine the screaming if he then allowed his cattle to shift into the next neighbours for a feed now the National park kangaroo's had cleaned his place out of feed?

we dont live in the ideal world.

you guys win, i'm out.

Edited October 18, 2012 by orrd

[Salukifan]

i think it should be harder for breeders - vets promoting blanket desexing is a crude but justifiable strategy - they get to mop up our mess way more than they should have to.

Whose mess?

20% of the dogs born in this country are whelped by ANKC registered breeders. Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

If you want to mop up the mess, it pays to be certain of who's making it before you take steps to clean it up.

Lumping all "breeders" into the one basket is hardly fair on those doing the right thing.

[orrd]

i think it should be harder for breeders - vets promoting blanket desexing is a crude but justifiable strategy - they get to mop up our mess way more than they should have to.

Whose mess?

20% of the dogs born in this country are whelped by ANKC registered breeders. Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

If you want to mop up the mess, it pays to be certain of who's making it before you take steps to clean it up.

Lumping all "breeders" into the one basket is hardly fair on those doing the right thing.

great another topic - my attention span is not good enough too keep up with the last.

your right it's hardly fair, so 20% you say, then to make a comparison we would have to assume that about 80% (in pound/rescue) would be non-ANKC dogs and about 20% would be, if the number comes out much less than 20% you would be on to something - then you would have to consider cause and effect - do some fraction of the 80% dodge ANKC breeders on financial grounds etc.

if yr gonna quote stats then you shouldn't prolly make these statements;

Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

me and you both don't know that - i would guess you are right but with out finding out the actual numbers and scaling it to the numbers sold by each and determining cause and effect it just quoting stats to obfuscate.

Edited October 18, 2012 by orrd

[Salukifan]

i think it should be harder for breeders - vets promoting blanket desexing is a crude but justifiable strategy - they get to mop up our mess way more than they should have to.

Whose mess?

20% of the dogs born in this country are whelped by ANKC registered breeders. Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

If you want to mop up the mess, it pays to be certain of who's making it before you take steps to clean it up.

Lumping all "breeders" into the one basket is hardly fair on those doing the right thing.

great another topic - my attention span is not good enough too keep up with the last.

your right it's hardly fair, so 20% you say, then to make a comparison we would have to assume that about 80% (in pound/rescue) would be non-ANKC dogs and about 20% would be, if the number comes out much less than 20% you would be on to something - then you would have to consider cause and effect - do some fraction of the 80% dodge ANKC breeders on financial grounds etc.

if yr gonna quote stats then you shouldn't prolly make these statements;

Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

me and you both don't know that - i would guess you are right but with out finding out the actual numbers and scaling it to the numbers sold by each and determining cause and effect it just quoting stats to obfuscate.

Actually, for the ACT I do know that and I'm not obfuscating about anything. If you're going to hurl bricks at breeders, then expect those who aren't contributing significantly to the issue of unwanted dogs to take issue with it.

I also know that pups sourced from petshops are OVER represented in the dumping stats where I live because the RSPCA collect such information. I'm not pulling these figures out of thin air.

Add to this the Uni of Qld research that found that responsibly bred purebred dogs were far less likely to be dumped than other dogs and I think you can take the guesswork clear out of the issue.

There are no simple answers to complex problems and "desex em all" only harms the responsible. Vets cant' desex dogs they never see and a not insignificant proportion of the sources of unwanted dogs fit into that category.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[orrd]

i think it should be harder for breeders - vets promoting blanket desexing is a crude but justifiable strategy - they get to mop up our mess way more than they should have to.

Whose mess?

20% of the dogs born in this country are whelped by ANKC registered breeders. Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

If you want to mop up the mess, it pays to be certain of who's making it before you take steps to clean it up.

Lumping all "breeders" into the one basket is hardly fair on those doing the right thing.

great another topic - my attention span is not good enough too keep up with the last.

your right it's hardly fair, so 20% you say, then to make a comparison we would have to assume that about 80% (in pound/rescue) would be non-ANKC dogs and about 20% would be, if the number comes out much less than 20% you would be on to something - then you would have to consider cause and effect - do some fraction of the 80% dodge ANKC breeders on financial grounds etc.

if yr gonna quote stats then you shouldn't prolly make these statements;

Yet the pounds aren't full of ANKC registered purebred dogs that have been dumped by their owners are they?

me and you both don't know that - i would guess you are right but with out finding out the actual numbers and scaling it to the numbers sold by each and determining cause and effect it just quoting stats to obfuscate.

Actually, for the ACT I do know that and I'm not obfuscating about anything. If you're going to hurl bricks at breeders, then expect those who aren't contributing significantly to the issue of unwanted dogs to take issue with it.

I also know that pups sourced from petshops are OVER represented in the dumping stats where I live because the RSPCA collect such information. I'm not pulling these figures out of thin air.

Add to this the Uni of Qld research that found that responsibly bred purebred dogs were far less likely to be dumped than other dogs and I think you can take the guesswork clear out of the issue.

There are no simple answers to complex problems and "desex em all" only harms the responsible. Vets cant' desex dogs they never see and a not insignificant proportion of the sources of unwanted dogs fit into that category.

i totally agree that registered breeders are a form of regulation that helps stem the tide and i am all for it, no argument here. as far as cause and effect it gets messier. people most likely pay more money for a dog from a reputable breeder than one they buy at the markets where there are no obligation for micro-chipping, vet checks....etc. generally people that pay a higher purchase price for anything are more likely to have considered their initial investment and not impulse buy at the sight of the cute fluffy puppy in a cage at the market or pet shop. if you only just decided to buy a dog when you happened to be walking past the pet shop window then my guess that person is just as likely to give it up when it is no longer cute and fluffy and requires vet bills, training, care....i could also name quite a few ANKC breeders that sell unregistered, no nothing...etc dogs to people at a heavily discounted price with no papers. to really tease out what the statistics mean is not done at a glance you certainly could not conclude that because someone is ANKC registered that overbreeding will decrease - no such conclusion i believe would be valid imo.

there are also some reputable breeders that are not ANKC registered, and some ANKC breeders that are not reputable. and some non ANKC breeders that breed great dogs as much as ANKC breeders that breed very low quality dogs - messy huh.

i support the concept of registered breeders in general but know that alone does not imply quality or ethics but possibly more likely to be.

[asal]

exactly"There are no simple answers to complex problems and "desex em all" only harms the responsible. Vets cant' desex dogs they never see and a not insignificant proportion of the sources of unwanted dogs fit into that category."

Remember being told by a local vet. That the source of sudden parvo outbreaks after strong windstorms was because for example "Mt Druitt has the largest population of unvaccinated dogs in the Sydney basin"

drive the streets of that suburb and they are filled with loose dogs.

scan the for sale sites at the local supermarkets and theres every breed you could imagine avaiable for purchase and a pretty nominal amount on the main, although pitt bulls tend to command the highest prices listed.

I cannot recall many logotto listed on dogzonline. Saw a entire litter listed at my local supermarket which certainly was not in Mt Druitt.

as said, 80 percent of dogs are not bred by registered breeders.

99 percent of australian cattledogs never came from a ankc parent many not ever descended from one in any generation

Edited October 18, 2012 by asal

[Salukifan]

i totally agree that registered breeders are a form of regulation that helps stem the tide and i am all for it, no argument here. as far as cause and effect it gets messier. people most likely pay more money for a dog from a reputable breeder than one they buy at the markets where there are no obligation for micro-chipping, vet checks....etc

Is is the law in most states that all pups be microchipped prior to sale. And you pay more for some crossbreds in pet shops than you pay for health tested parents breeds from ANKC registered breeders.

. generally people that pay a higher purchase price for anything are more likely to have considered their initial investment and not impulse buy at the sight of the cute fluffy puppy in a cage at the market or pet shop

.

But it isn't purchase price that determines whether or not a dog gets dumped. Once again, it is when the dog fail to live up to its owner's expectations (which with uninformed purchases are often unrealistic) that sees it at the pound. And yes, there is research on that too.

if you only just decided to buy a dog when you happened to be walking past the pet shop window then my guess that person is just as likely to give it up when it is no longer cute and fluffy and requires vet bills, training, care....i

could also name quite a few ANKC breeders that sell unregistered, no nothing...etc dogs to people at a heavily discounted price with no papers. to really tease out what the statistics mean is not done at a glance you certainly

could not conclude that because someone is ANKC registered that overbreeding will decrease - no such conclusion i believe would be valid imo.

Then I suggest you do so to the appropriate canine control. Veiled assertions about knowledge of wrong doing here won't accomplish anything. Given that ANKC breeders can't register a litter if one is born to a bitch every season and are restricted in the numbers of litters any bitch can produce, surely you'd have to agree that this is a positive step against "over breeding'.

However if you're concluding that dogs end up in pounds because too many are bred, again you would be misinformed and that there is research (actually conducted to inform the mandatory desexing debate) that refutes that.

there are also some reputable breeders that are not ANKC registered, and some ANKC breeders that are not reputable. and some non ANKC breeders that breed great dogs as much as ANKC breeders that breed very low quality dogs - messy huh.

i support the concept of registered breeders in general but know that alone does not imply quality or ethics but possibly more likely to be.

Preaching to the choir on that. However you're the one who made a blanket statement that it "should be harder for breeders". Crikey, how much harder do you want it to be for responsible breeders when there are plenty of "breeders" out there who don't pay any attention to the laws they are subject to now???

Edited October 18, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[asal]

"Preaching to the choir on that. However you're the one who made a blanket statement that it "should be harder for breeders". Crikey, how much harder do you want it to be for responsible breeders when there are plenty of "breeders" out there who don't pay any attention to the laws they are subject to now??? "

EXACTLY haredownwippets.

a significant proportion of the untraceabl's neither vaccinate nor microchip nor for that matter even worm the parents let alone the pups.

let alone one of their dogs ever see a vet in its lifetime.

get impounded? get another from the same source it came from

[asal]

trouble is the solution seems to be, get rid of the ANKC breeders .

then decide IF that solved the problem.

getting a bit away from the dingo issue to a degree maybe

[orrd]

i totally agree that registered breeders are a form of regulation that helps stem the tide and i am all for it, no argument here. as far as cause and effect it gets messier. people most likely pay more money for a dog from a reputable breeder than one they buy at the markets where there are no obligation for micro-chipping, vet checks....etc

Is is the law in most states that all pups be microchipped prior to sale. And you pay more for some crossbreds in pet shops than you pay for health tested parents breeds from ANKC registered breeders.

. generally people that pay a higher purchase price for anything are more likely to have considered their initial investment and not impulse buy at the sight of the cute fluffy puppy in a cage at the market or pet shop

.

But it isn't purchase price that determines whether or not a dog gets dumped. Once again, it is when the dog fail to live up to its owner's expectations (which with uninformed purchases are often unrealistic) that sees it at the pound. And yes, there is research on that too.

if you only just decided to buy a dog when you happened to be walking past the pet shop window then my guess that person is just as likely to give it up when it is no longer cute and fluffy and requires vet bills, training, care....i

could also name quite a few ANKC breeders that sell unregistered, no nothing...etc dogs to people at a heavily discounted price with no papers. to really tease out what the statistics mean is not done at a glance you certainly

could not conclude that because someone is ANKC registered that overbreeding will decrease - no such conclusion i believe would be valid imo.

Then I suggest you do so to the appropriate canine control. Veiled assertions about knowledge of wrong doing here won't accomplish anything. Given that ANKC breeders can't register a litter if one is born to a bitch every season and are restricted in the numbers of litters any bitch can produce, surely you'd have to agree that this is a positive step against "over breeding'.

However if you're concluding that dogs end up in pounds because too many are bred, again you would be misinformed and that there is research (actually conducted to inform the mandatory desexing debate) that refutes that.

there are also some reputable breeders that are not ANKC registered, and some ANKC breeders that are not reputable. and some non ANKC breeders that breed great dogs as much as ANKC breeders that breed very low quality dogs - messy huh.

i support the concept of registered breeders in general but know that alone does not imply quality or ethics but possibly more likely to be.

Preaching to the choir on that. However you're the one who made a blanket statement that it "should be harder for breeders". Crikey, how much harder do you want it to be for responsible breeders when there are plenty of "breeders" out there who don't pay any attention to the laws they are subject to now???

good points, thanks for that, i would like to see the research on mandatory desexing if you have link, that would be educational (i am not doubting you),

"...it is when the dog fail to live up to its owner's expectations (which with uninformed purchases are often unrealistic) that sees it at the pound. And yes, there is research on that too.

i can believe this more than previous but if there is actual research on this i would appreciatte it.

maybe the missing links are education/briefing for the buyer and stricter controls on advertising hype, they are related the more ignorant the buyer the more the seller can hyoe and/BS/lie and the buyer not realise untill the dog is 18mo, for example i cringe at all the german shepherds getting sold that will protect your family, one example of a complete lie as very few german shepherds being bred could protect themselves in reality let alone protect anyone else - i would like to be genuinely more informed on this debate and lessen the suffering, so links would be a starting point.

[asal]

maybe the missing links are education/briefing for the buyer and stricter controls on advertising hype, they are related the more ignorant the buyer the more the seller can hyoe and/BS/lie and the buyer not realise untill the dog is 18mo, for example i cringe at all the german shepherds getting sold that will protect your family, one example of a complete lie as very few german shepherds being bred could protect themselves in reality let alone protect anyone else - i would like to be genuinely more informed on this debate and lessen the suffering, so links would be a starting point.

you are also forgetting that it is also true that 90% of "breeds" eg pits,dobermans,rotties and german shepherds, just to name some are not or ever from ANKC breeders.

the majority of our "breeds" are bred by the unknown, untracable breeders .

they are not expected to 'inform' the purchaser of the puppy being handed over

found this link

http://www.leabashiba.com/german_shepherd_dog_club_austral.htm

you can still find the original dogs still in existance among the australian backyard population.

I expect such dogs will be used to "save" the ANKC breeds like was done with the Stumpy Tailed Cattledog. (there was in the end only one registered breeder of STC's if you dont know that) if they do not end up closed down as a registry due to insufficient number of both breeds and breeders.

Edited October 18, 2012 by asal

[MalteseLuna]

Exactly.

This is the real world, national parks dont have dog proof fences, they dont even have kangaroo proof fences.

I remember counting 200 kangaroos in among a friends cattle one morning. His property was beside what????????? National Park.

Imagine the screaming if he then allowed his cattle to shift into the next neighbours for a feed now the National park kangaroo's had cleaned his place out of feed?

we dont live in the ideal world.

I'm sorry but Kangaroos should be able to feed on any patch of grass they want.

This is the sentiment that really frustrates me... us humans need to co-exist with wild (native/indigenous) animals not exclude them for economic/financial gain.

Anyway this is going off-topic, I think we have answered the original question. I'm out of here