Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> Hunting and scavenging also has it's place and contributed to the now
> all-eating human animal. I can see it as a central topic only for humans
> which entered northern areas (with fatty animals) and after developping
> effective hunting weapons and tools.
>
> As I myself avoid animal carcass, it's easier for me to
> see the advantages of such paleo-plants and to not overempasize the central
> topic of the "standard western nutrition": meat (animal muscle).
>
> >..
> >The live in groups and arent hard to hunt.
> The miraculous evolution strategies of kangaroos aren't made against
> predators. As you point out, Australia was for a very long period devoid of
> predators  and only late came only the dingo.
>
> I think this is also the main reason why they are easy to hunt.

There arent many herbivores on this planet that arent easy to hunt.
With that said, red kangaroos do grow 6 feet or so and can kick hard
though this is usually seen against other kangaroos, their instinct
is to run (well jump) when stalked.

>
> >There is evidence
> >to suggest that they were eaten, and eaten with a lot of the body
> >discarded (the edible part
>
> Science suggests that of such low fat animals only parts can be eaten.

 See my points below ...like it or not, they did just hunt more of them.


>
> >The lack of
> >numerous types of powerful predator may also be responsible for the
> >development of the native species. Most of the animals here would not
> >exist at all in an environment with significant numbers of predators.
>
> Thanks God humans were also not the super-predator, which hunted all the
> harmless creatures of Australia to extinction. Unlike other animals in other
> areas , e.g. the moa of New Zealand.
> Why?
> Somehow the aboriginal culture wase cute enough to limit it's own population
> count to numbers which were bearable for the land.
> Whithout hunting all kangaroos to extinction.

With regard to this, I would respond that in general Australia is not
all that inhabitable - large areas of desert. That is to say it is less
inhabitable by humans, but not so many of our native animals. I am not
so surer it was as much a result of environmentally concerned hunting as
it was a case of numbers - Kangaroos are incredibly plentiful - even
times of severe drought don't seem to affect them as much as it would
humans who had to survive in without access to modern technology
(agriculture etc). New Zealand has a drastically different geography.
This has far reaching effects on what type of life can be sustained, and
in fact can contribute to what predators may survive there. Over
millenia, it is not hard to imagine, that this could give rise to a
predator that eventually hunted other animals to extinction. There have
been remains found of giant eagles in New Zealand. It is thought that
they were hunted to extinction - not due to creless hunting, but because
they were predators big enough that they would conceivably have attacked
humans. On a related note - Tasmania - Australias south eastern large
island, has a predominantly rain forest geography. Here are found
predators not seen on the mainland - the Tasmanian devil - and also the
Tasmanian tiger -  thought to be extinct since 1930(some of the land is
still yet to be thoroughly explored - and some people cling to the hope
that still some of them survive. The last one died in captivity around
1930)


>
> Possibly because not so much animal could be eaten without additional fat.
> Possibly because the aboriginal population had enough of better suited food
> in marvellous plant resources.

I respect your in depth analysis, and the considerable thought that goes
in to your posts, but on this point I would agree somewhat with
(Andrews?) view. I do not think it is as clear cut as 100% kangaroo diet
being consumed, but during times of drought, it could (and did - I am
not using calculations, but accounts of what was actually eaten) be the
major source of nutrients. The fact is kangaroos were hunted and a lot
of them were wasted. In a sense this is a way around the problem of not
enough fat in the kangaroo - the kangaroo population is able to
withstand this without too much problem (they continue to be used in pet
meats). I know it is perhaps wasteful, but it is nonetheless a
reasonable course of action to take - only so much useful meat per
kangaroo, but seemingly unlimited kangaroos, just hunt more. Our
marvellous plant resources arent really that marvellous, yes there are
some edible plants, but its hardly the garden of eden :)


On a sort of related note - re: protein intake and calcium loss. This
was brought up in the misc.fitness.weights newsgroups, and the point
(which is true ) was brought up that there are too many factors just to
consider protein intake. The proof of this wa that strength athletes,
who have the highest protein intakes of pretty much any group, also have
the highest bone density.

John McKenzie