Talk:Red kangaroo

May 2006

"A little-known fact is that the red kangaroo has a weak anabolic poison in the claws of its hind legs."

Where has this fact come from?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.113.54 (talk • contribs)

Removed. There is no factual basis for this statement whatsoever, it is either a prank or a misattribution of something more properly ascribed to the platypus. There is no such thing as an "anabolic poison" either. - Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

June 2006

Kangaroo's can retract their testes, but I was under the impression this was for protection when fighting with each other, not because the bounce to much.

I added some interesting facts given to me by my friend who works in a zoo as a volunteer docent. I am assuming that these are completely factual since the zoo has a strict policy about giving misinformation to visitors (it is not allowed under any circumstances). I also have access to the exhibit (I may ask if I can take pictures so that I may contribute them to the article. I may be able to get a halfway decent group of pictures to supplement the existing photo) Morganismysheltie 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Kangaroo and size

I am a Professional Kangaroo Shooter in the state of Western Australia. I have shot both Red kangaroos and Western Grey kangaroos. I can atest to the fact that by weight alone, Red kangaroos are not the largest of the two. The biggest Red (male AKA "Boomer")I have taken weighed in at 47 Kgs gutted. The biggest Grey (male AKA "Boomer")I have taken weighed in at 62.5 Kgs. This roo stood at a little over 7 feet tall standing (measured from the heel to the top of the head, not the ears) and a touch shy of 9 feet tall "propped" (in the fighting stance measured from ball of the the extended foot to the top of the head). Hanging from the base of the tail, his neck and shoulders were touching the ground. My rack is 6.5 feet high. The biggest Red I have seen shot, by a friend in the Pilbara, stood 7 feet tall "propped" and weighed in at 49 Kgs gutted. Incidently, gutting accounts for approximately 45% of the "on hoof" weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper1 (talk • contribs).

• Hmm, having looked into the users contributions, I'm a bit wary of this information. However, having said that, I have also heard accounts from professional roo shooters, truckies, bushies, etc, of red kangaroos getting much larger than the 6ft quoted in the page. There are also a few websites around that quote sizes larger than 6ft, however their reliability would be difficult to prove. Is there anyway of knowing where the figure of 5.9ft came from? T.carnifex (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Page revamp needed

This page needs a total re-write by someone who knows something about animals. What is written here is largely amateur nonsense. e.g. (i) "It has two appendages with small claws (much like arms)". Is it possible that these are arms? (ii) "It can go long periods of time without water, as long as it has access to green plants as they have the ability to take moisture out of plants." Is this some kind of unique ability or could it possibly be that all animals including humans can absorb water this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.51.86 (talk • contribs).

My dad and I shot roos in NSW. I hardly ever saw a SMALL RED in NSW. They were always fully grown and stood at around 7ft. The shooter is right and the person who wrote this article for WIKI obviously never saw one unless it was in a zoo - where they tend to be smaller..marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.194 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The small intestine is designed to absorb moisture, possums seem to be better than macropods at this. Koalas have the same ability as possums though in drought they need to drink. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the current paragraph on size is fine. It gives measurements obtained from a reputable source, which is cited, then goes on to mention that reports of larger animals is not unusual. I have tried in the past to find recent surveys and studies which conclude average sizes nearer those witnessed by hunters (professional or not) and drivers, but failed. The problem with using sizes reported by roo shooters is there is not documented evidence, or if the animal was not shot, the size may have simply been misjudged. Also, determining average sizes from roo shooters could be problematic if there is a bias for larger animals. Perhaps someone could find any records from a museum or zoo which states a size for the largest recorded M. rufus? Regarding the water usage and gut biology, I don't know enough to change much. However, I notice they are very well arid adapted and live quite happily in areas with little permanent water, or lush, green grasses for that matter. Cheers, T.carnifex (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely removed "people say that we can look after red kangaroos if we get the right feeding program e.g we need grass abd plants so they can eat and we also nedd water so they can drink. but they also can live long periods without water cause thay have the ability to suck moisture out of them, this may be included in the feeding paragraph" part of the introductory paragraph since: 1. Poorly written, amateurish. 2. Does not contribute to the paragraph. 3. Needs to be put somewhere else. ReinforcedReinforcements (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's completely re-written, it doesn't need to be put anywhere else... Mainly because it doesn't belong anywhere (except, perhaps, here in the talk page) for the same first two reasons you removed it. Undoubtedly, these animals can be looked after in captivity. Zoo's are evidence of this. Can they be farmed and harvested like other stock animals? Perhaps. Although, if I recall correctly, it's not as easy as one first thinks. The final point our amateur editor makes is null; the animal's ability to draw water from its feed is already mentioned in the article. Discussion on how effective it is at doing this, and how reliant on water it is, is being held here (although I can't help but notice that the discussion has somewhat stalled, and no action has been taken on the remarks posted above). T.carnifex (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

move independently?

How does the kangaroo manage to move its legs independently underwater when it can't do so on the ground? bibliomaniac15 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They Dont Swim. ZooPro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Habitat

Can someone find the habitats of the Red kangaroo?--68.98.154.196 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just removed

"In 2007, Australian scientists discovered gills behind the ears of a male Red Kangaroo. These allowed it to breathe underwater for up to 3 minutes, before resurfacing to eat its regular diet of young saltwater crocodile. This new subspecies is now being held in Adelaide Zoo"

from this page. Jezzamon (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for preserving this gem on the talk page :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.201.245 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people are just stupid. ZooPro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroo Image's

I have no preference to what image is used on the articles "description" section however it should be noted that the constant reverts and changes could be considered edit warring in a mild form. I would personaly like to see 2 images of a Male and Female both in an upright position that are both standing like the current female. ZooPro 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who keep adding low quality (whether its low res, blurred ect) seem to fail to see that itis not just on how the animal is standing or facing, sure I would like it to be in the same position as the female but we (Wikipedia and Commons) do not have an free-use image which as the same or better quality then the Melb Zoo RK. User:Bobisbob2's reason to change a good quality to a blurred, unnatural (These roo's are found in bare ground areas of Australia [IE: the outback]) low quality image, using the edit summary of terrible background which is hardly a valid reason. Bidgee (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture that the description and infobox images should be traded IMO, although the present situation is also fine. The animal's natural habitat is actually important in my view in a presentation picture. Orderinchaos 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The image in the infobox depicts both male and female animals, if you are able to find a single image of both a male and female roo together i have no problem with a change.ZooPro 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit war over the photo is starting to annoy me, i dont care who removed the illistration however i am annoyed that it was replaced with a crapy image. I will restore it to what it was and any further changes should be discussed on the talk page.ZooPro 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)