On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:39:08 +1100, John McKenzie <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>There arent many herbivores on this planet that arent easy to hunt.

I suppose you mean with a rifle and a car.
Probably with only an all wood spear and on foot it would be more difficult
to hunt a gazelle or bison.

I found it interesting to read aboriginals hunting kangaroo when they are
lazing around in the mid-day heat.
That's really an advantage of the human cooling system and of the bigger
redundant brain. It allows activity in the hot hours.
Of course this allows hunting as well as gathering activity in security from
the predators which are active in cooler hours.

>> 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 ..

I've read that aboriginals also had a carefully planned child production.
Also by little surgical interventions.
In the famous book from the woman walking around in the bush for some time
with aboriginals (title?) she mentiones that one tribe decided to commit
"tribe suicide" - by not having any more children.

>..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..

You mean, the outback is so harsh for humans to survive, that humans
couldn't threaten the kangaroo population too much?
Normally it is the case for predators, that they multiply until they reach a
number, proportional to the prey. The limit is only the prey count - how
many are huntable by the predators.

If humans touched only a very small number of all kangaroos, then there must
be annother limit than just the prey count.
Rabbit starvation (protein intoxication) is a possible hint.
You point out that eating only fatty parts (discarding the rest)
was common. That's logical, if no other food was available.
However then many more kangaroo would have to be killed, from a much bigger
area. Each landscape has the maximum of herbivore which can live on it. I
suppose the kangaroo count is not unlimited, really.
Farming in Australia didn't manage to sustain more than a certain number of
sheep or cattle.
Kangaroos will just do better on the same area.
But how many times 64 million kangaroos will it be?
Maybe you'll approach some limit after Europeans start to eat kangaroo now
- well in fear of BSE. I've seen it in our casino.

> 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.

A nice description I've found about aboriginal hunting and gathering at
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Aborigines.html
Without amounts.
Could you cite some actual accounts, in times of drought and normally?

>... but seemingly unlimited kangaroos, just hunt more.

seemingly unlimited.. But what limited the human hunting?

>Our
>marvellous plant resources arent really that marvellous, yes there are
>some edible plants, but its hardly the garden of eden :)

Price pottenger points out some nice plant resouces.
I'm a definite fan of macadamias.

> 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.

This is logical as the bones respond to forces in growing.
However I think you can be shure that modern athletes take the acid load
into account by adding massive calcium supplements and dairy.
Even very high protein eating athletes will not fall into ketosis, like
many paleolisters eating a northern ice age diet use to do.
What's the average age of strength athletes you have in mind?
Probably rather young. Bone loss normally starts at about 40.
Let's see how the bones remain after the age of 60 on the same diet.

Regards, Amadeus S.

(I've always been a great fan of Australia - for years I had a big map of
Australia on my youth room wall
particularly fond of Tasmania and SW Australia)