The objective of this forum was to assess revolutionary conservation proposals that aspire to reform current constraints on using native fauna as a replacement for the traditional European models of land use. Gordon Grigg outlines the history of the ideas that underpin this radical proposal. Mike Archer argues that eating our native fauna is a better conservation option than the current paradigm of an English agricultural landscape that excludes native fauna and is composed almost entirely of introduced plant and animal species. The trade-off for the retirement of sheep from much of the land is that we consume kangaroo and other native species in order to create a market for indigenous products. Mike Archer and Paul Hopwood present and defend another contentious thesis, namely that native mammals should become pets, and thus provide Australians with the opportunity to get to know their own fauna. This proposal has its critics in Karen Viggers and David Lindenmayer, who address a long list of serious matters concerning the keeping of native mammals as companions. Penny Figgis presents her concern that Archer has overlooked the fundamental value of national parks as repositories of biodiversity in his grand vision of a wild landscape. Harry Recher's position is the most challenging. He remains concerned that these proposals do not address the fundamental problems of the land degradation crisis.