Violent Greenies at it again

[Neferti]

Vandals target Parks and Conservation depot 'in kangaroo cull protest''

The ACT's parks and conservation service is facing a hefty damage bill after an overnight vandalism attack, believed to be in protest against the annual kangaroo cull.

Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) officials said they arrived at the Athllon Drive depot in Canberra's inner south this morning, to find 10 government vehicles and one government building damaged.

They believe vandals broke in overnight by cutting through a chain fence and caused up to $10,000 damage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-17/v ... tenews_act

Earlier press says that the annual kangaroo cull will go ahead.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-11/a ... ad/5515634

Mr Iglesias has warned people found within the closed nature reserves faced fines of up to $7,000.

Right. That'll scare those Greenies.

[IQS.RLOW]

the leftwing idiots must not realise that it is kinder to cull them than let them starve to death.

This is the brain power of the left in action and it runs through every single one of them. Can't contemplate any other logical thought process. It's them that should be culled.

[Super Nova]

These aren't greenies they are vandals and should feel the full force of the law.

They need to be culled because man has created an artificial environment for them to survive and breed (that is crops and water). Real environmentalist would understand that. Greenies are not environmentalists they are something else.

[alevine]

No arguments regarding culling when over population threatens the species.

And sure, there are environmentalists who are extreme, as there is extremity in everything. Doesn't mean that the overall cause of an environmentalist isn't a good one. For example, how can anyone explain away the idea of this federal government to raze old growth forest, home of vulnerable species such as the Tasmanian Devil? If not for environmentalists, who would stand up to protect from such stupidity?

[IQS.RLOW]

Old growth forests are renewable and aren't "razed"

Try again

[alevine]

Old growth forests are renewable and aren't "razed"

Try again

And how long does it take for them to be renewed?

[IQS.RLOW]

It doesn't matter. They can be renewed, therefore they can be managed. Simply saying NO is the response of an idiot.

[alevine]

It doesn't matter. They can be renewed, therefore they can be managed. Simply saying NO is the response of an idiot.

So you don't know how long it takes yet you're willing to go ahead with razing it. Let me guess... you also think oil renews too, right?

[IQS.RLOW]

Tsk tsk...first a red herring and now a strawman.

Please lift your game

[alevine]

Tsk tsk...first a red herring and now a strawman.

Please lift your game

It's the same principle, no? Perhaps you can explain, you're the one who tells me that 500 year old trees can be "renewed" after being torn down. Don't tell me, please, that your idea of renewed is for us to sit by the hill and wait for 500 years?