Letters to the Editor: Kangaroo leather is a product of wildlife management, not ‘mass slaughters’

To the editor: It is misleading for your editorial board to characterize the harvesting of kangaroos in Australia as “mass slaughters for commerce,” or to imply that the production of leather is the main reason for the “slaughter.”

A responsible editorial board would have researched the harvesting of kangaroo meat (with hides as a byproduct) as being a viable and necessary way to manage a thriving kangaroo population that is commercialized in no other way.

While California might take the high road in its interpretation of another country’s wildlife management, Australians and the Australian government are considered to be of no consequence.

Sadly, The Times Editorial Board hoes the same row as California’s government, and in doing so does its readers a distinct disservice.

Ian Watt, Morro Bay

..

To the editor: Thank you for calling on state agencies to enforce the sales ban on kangaroo skin.

California has a long history of protecting wildlife used in commerce via sales bans, including many big cats, zebras, pythons, elephants and others. My nonprofit, Social Compassion in Legislation, cosponsored Assembly Bill 1260, authored by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego), which in 2019 added iguanas, skinks, caimans, hippopotamuses and Teju, Ring and Nile lizards to the list of animals banned for sale in the state.

With so many high-quality, long-lasting synthetics available, there is no justifiable reason animals should be killed for their skins for soccer cleats or any other product.

While I am encouraged to hear that private organizations are taking it upon themselves to sue those businesses violating the law, I hope the Legislature will fund more enforcement officers in the Department of Fish and Wildlife so California’s laws have the teeth these animals deserve.

Judie Mancuso, Laguna Beach

The writer is a Democratic candidate for the state Assembly.