Australians told to eat more kangaroo as population hits double that of humans

California bans all sorts of things. Foie gras, wood stoves, apples from some other states in the union, reference to a nationally recognizable sports team, allowing animals to have sex within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship[0], driving in a housecoat (but only if you're a woman)[citation needed], and the eating of any frog which dies in a frog race (really).

Id agree on the taste part. Never had bison, but still that same gamey taste, certainly stronger than venison.

As for cooking, no, terribly dangerous advice. Cook kangaroo well regardless of what butchers and cooking shows tell you.

Kangaroo has somewhere near 20x the bacterial levels of raw chicken. It's wild hunted meat that's been commercialised. Perfectly fine if you eat it soon after being killed, but no sold roo in Australia falls into that category.

https://www.foodsafety.com.au/news/food-safety-issues-affect...

There's plenty of ways to keep meat tender while cooking it well, pressure cooking does an amazing job.

Not the animal, the meat. The meat has been butchered and then left out too long. For some meats, aging in this way improves the taste or texture - Not so much for lamb.

I visited my brother in Sydney and he took me to a restaurant where they served chunks of raw kangaroo meat with a super-heated rock to cook it on. I thought the meat was pretty good.

Grammatical aside -- historically, aboriginal is an adjective, aborigine is a noun -- so you could talk about Australian aborigines, or aboriginal Australians.

Agreed on pest status of kangaroos. They are hugely destructive animals, worse than goats especially as the larger kangaroos can clear almost any fence, plus can do you some serious physical harm if they feel threatened.

There's arguably 4-6 species that come under the heading kangaroo. Then you've got the wallabies (anything not big enough to be considered a kangaroo), and the wallaroos (anything not either of the above). Then a few other categories (tree wallabies, say). I feel the taxonomy is unnecessarily confusing.

IIRC, the biggest problem with roos and droughts are that they can stall development of their young, and then re-start it once the drought breaks -- so as a group they're very quick to bounce back in numbers.

I think your take on firearms and Australians' attitude towards same comes across as a bit loaded.

Firearm laws weren't exactly USA-style levels of free-n-easy pre-1996. The same people that would go out shooting kangaroos pre-1996 are the same people that are able to legally obtain guns with relative ease today. Most of the law reform was around semi-automatic, self-loading and pump action style weapons. So, not terribly high-impact in terms of kangaroo culling by farmers.

I feel that the 'dirty' attitude you're referring to is shared by almost every non-USA society (or at least, non-USA western society), especially amongst those that are informed regarding USA style gun laws and consequences of same.

I'm even more dubious about the correlation of political party's attitudes towards firearms and kangaroo culling. I don't know how trustworthy this source [1] is, but it suggests the four main political parties in 2016 were not against the idea of commercial kangaroo culling. Two fringe groups were against it, but all other parties noted there had 'no official policy'. I don't know of any political discourse that would be in jeopardy by either the current administration, or the primary opposition group, by advocating kangaroo culling.

[1] https://www.voiceless.org.au/election2016_positions