The Kangaroo Industry Its image and market Improving one by improving the other

A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by John Kelly

March 2003 RIRDC Publication No 02/166 RIRDC Project No LEC-1A

ii

© 2003 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 0 642 58565 2 ISSN 1440-6845 The Kangaroo Industry – Its image and market Publication No. 02/166 Project No. LEC-1A. The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186.

Researcher Contact Details John Kelly Lenah Consultancy PO Box 294 MOWBRAY, 7248 (03) 6326 7696 (03) 6326 2790 lenah@bigpond.net.au

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: rirdc@rirdc.gov.au. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in March 2003 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint

iii

Foreword The kangaroo industry has always had a PR problem. It harvests an icon species and doing so presents an emotional challenge for many people opposed to killing animals in general. There is a vocal minority who vigorously oppose the industry and take every opportunity to attack it in domestic and international press, and in its market place. In addition the Australian community, especially the urban community, hold a Eurocentric notion of food. For many ‘food’ is product which Europeans eat - beef, lamb, pasta, truffles etc. Eating the native products of this land, especially its wildlife, presents a paradigm challenge. Finally for most people in Sydney, Melbourne, New York or London ALL wildlife is endangered. For many the concept of harvesting wildlife does not fit into their concept of ‘conservation’, never mind that the commercially harvested species of kangaroos had an estimate 2002 population of 56.8 million and controlling their number is an environmental necessity. Thus there is an ongoing need for continued positive image development of the kangaroo industry to enable it to continue its strong growth.

This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Federal Government and kangaroo industry contributions to RIRDC. This report, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 900 research publications, forms part of our emerging animal industries R&D program, which aims to accelerate the development of viable new animal industries. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au

purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop

Simon Hearn Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iv

Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................. iii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. v

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................1

2. Methodology.........................................................................................................................2

3. Results .................................................................................................................................3

4. Discussion............................................................................................................................5

5. Recommendations ...............................................................................................................6

Appendix 1 ...............................................................................................................................7

Major resource material generated to help defend the kangaroo industry against radical attack ....................................................................................................................................7

Appendix 2 .............................................................................................................................30

Paper given at International Symposium of Veterinary Conservation Biology....................30

v

Executive Summary The kangaroo industry is one of the few industries in the country which spends the bulk of its promotional budget on simply defending what it does, rather than promoting product. The industry comes under regular and heated attack from radical vegetarians preying on the fact that it utilises iconic wildlife. Thus the industry has an ongoing and strong need to improve its image in the general public and defend itself against such attacks. This project focused on: 1) Generating positive media coverage on the kangaroo industry 2) Informing the Australian government and environmental academic community of the responsible

and ethical nature of the kangaroo industry. 3) Facilitating incorporation of kangaroo industry information into environmental management

curricula in Australian tertiary training. The project generated in excess of one piece of positive mainstream media coverage on the kangaroo industry for every week of its duration. Considerable efforts were also devoted towards defending the industry in several campaigns mounted by radical anti kangaroo industry groups during the project’s duration. It also produced 12 industry newsletters giving extensive information on the sustainable and responsible nature of the industry to the government and academic community. In addition the resources the project generated have encouraged considerable use in tertiary training of the kangaroo industry as a model of sustainable wildlife utilisation. It appears that during the course of the project, public and government support for the kangaroo industry within Australia has improved considerably. Evidence is available that this has assisted domestic kangaroo meat market development. The kangaroo industry should ensure that there are ongoing resources to promote the industry as environmentally sustainable, responsible and wise.

1

1. Introduction The kangaroo industry is one of the few industries in the country which is forced to spend the vast bulk of its promotional budget simply defending what it does, rather than marketing product. It harvests an icon species and in doing so attracts strong attention from radical vegetarians who prey on the easily encouraged view that the kangaroo industry threatens the species with extinction and is cruel. This message is readily lapped up by a media hungry for sensationalist copy. The strength and of the anti kangaroo industry lobby and the vitriol they pitch at the industry can be readily gauged by a short visit to www.savethekangaroo.com, a website of the group Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva), one of the more active anti kangaroo industry lobby groups.

Thus there is an ongoing need for continued positive image development of the kangaroo industry to enable it to continue its strong growth.

This project was designed to deliver pro-active ongoing kangaroo industry PR. It ensured the ongoing development activities of the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia (KIAA) generated positive press, and that a positive industry image was enhanced in government and academic circles. In particular the project was designed to harness the increasing acceptance of wildlife utilisation amongst the Australian wildlife management community to assist acceptance of the kangaroo industry by the Australian public. The kangaroo industry is increasing seen as a vital environmental management tool in the arid rangelands. Whilst the sustainability of pastoral activities in much of the Australian arid rangelands is under constant investigation, the fact remains that they are currently supporting a large population of kangaroos which, if uncontrolled, would seriously threaten the economic viability of the pastoral industry and the environmental sustainability of huge tracks of land. These are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals. Allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in the rangelands. The kangaroo industry is the only tool currently available to exercise control over the kangaroo contribution to grazing pressure. Furthermore, the kangaroo population represents a resource. There is extensive ethical debate concerning the morality of utilising wildlife as a resource. This debate however, rarely examines the moral imperative for nations to utilise their resources to the best effect in supplying the world with the food and commodities it needs. Over the past 30 years a significant industry has developed which utilises the kangaroo resource. Initially its focus was largely on pest control for the pastoral industries. However over the last decade there has been a growing realisation that the kangaroo industry has significant economic and environmental benefits. The kangaroo industry currently generates in excess of $200 million per year in income and employs over 4,000 people. The vast bulk of these jobs are in remote rural communities, many of which would not exist without the industry.

This project was initiated to benefit the kangaroo industry by increasing market acceptance and therefore throughput. In doing so it not only directly benefits the kangaroo industry, but also the pastoral sector by improving the effectiveness of kangaroo control thereby improving both their productivity and sustainability. Finally a kangaroo industry achieving full quota utilisation will deliver considerable environmental benefits in improving the effectiveness of management of the kangaroo component of total grazing pressure in the arid rangelands. This has the potential to significantly arrest land degradation and biodiversity loss.

2

2. Methodology The project had three principal areas of focus.

Generating positive mainstream press coverage of the kangaroo industry.

Press releases were prepared on a regular basis and distributed by the KIAA as appropriate. In addition the project ensured resources were available to respond to press interest on the industry generated by these releases and other sources. A substantial focus of the project was providing and co-ordinating informed and credible comment on the industry in response to the various anti kangaroo industry campaigns run by radical vegetarians and animal liberationists. Improving industry perception in Government and Education sectors. The project produced and publish via KIAA 6 newsletters per year detailing industry activities and the importance of the kangaroo industry in environmental sustainability. These were distributed in hard copy and electronically to an extensive distribution list prepared as part of the project. This distribution list focused on government and environmental management circles. Increasing coverage of sustainable wildlife utilisation in tertiary courses. The project attempted to work with institutions to attract funding for production of a CD compiling and presenting in a curriculum based structure literature on wildlife utilisation relevant to Australia. Other activities were co-ordinated with tertiary education institutions to facilitate on an ad hoc basis understanding of the industry. Key Messages Throughout all activities the key underlining message was that the kangaroo industry is responsible, sustainable and indeed environmentally wise. This was achieved by continually stressing facts relating to the industry including, but not limited to the following: • the harvest is controlled by a government quota determined by annual population surveys • the industry is subject to intensive controls and monitoring • many of the regulations have been introduced at industries request • kangaroos are one of the most common large wild land animals on earth, their populations are

increasing • controlling the kangaroo component of Total Grazing Pressure is an essential environmental

management need in the arid rangelands • kangaroo harvesting is one of the most humane forms of meat production These and other facts, with supportive evidence, were mixed as appropriate for individual media to create the general impression that: It makes wonderful environmental wisdom for us, in this land to produce our food, from the animals

which belong here. The kangaroo industry does so ethically and points the way forward to a more sustainable use of the

rangelands

3

3. Results Media Coverage: A selection of press releases produced in the project are available at www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/news/news_frame.htm. These and other project activities resulted in at least the following media coverage (note these are the know coverage, it is expected that considerably more was generated but not know to the project, all included in the count had a largely positive spin on the industry): international radio 21 interviews international TV 10 stories international press 36 articles domestic TV 4 stories domestic press 51 articles domestic radio 31 interviews This amounts to more than one piece of positive mainstream media coverage on the kangaroo industry every week of the projects operation. Examples of significant media products facilitated by this project included: a segment for National Geographics widely syndicated TV series Earthbeat a segment for the Nexus TV program which is syndicated throughout SE Asia a segment for a major Italian current affairs program several segments for Korean TV a major and incredibly supportive article in the Journal of Natural History Examples of print media headlines facilitated by the project include: To Help Land, Australians Rethink Role of Kangaroos “The kangaroo, unique to Australia, is among the world’s most numerous large mammals, a pest in some areas, and for some, a low fat delicacy. New York Times, 17/12/01 Roo culling is humane slaughter

“The kangaroo industry could claim to be the most sustainable and humane carnivorous supply chain

in the nation.” Canberra Times, 12/1/02

Roo culling a business about to go boom

“Queensland Wildlife Preservation Society director Jan Oliver said the organisation gave restricted approval to the quotas if kangaroo numbers were shown to be sustainable and the killings were done humanely.” The Australian, 10/1/02

4

Skippy’s days are numbered “If we care for our national symbol, we should ditch the cute and cuddly syndrome that afflicts our relationship with the kangaroo. Australia, you’re eating it and helping to preserve it - and that’s nothing to be ashamed of.” The Australian’s editorial 10/1/02 Over the course of the project several campaigns against the kangaroo industry were launched by radical vegetarians. These included: • campaigns against the David Jones store in Sydney and the Safeway supermarket chain in

Victoria to attempt to stop them stocking kangaroo meat, • a general campaign surrounding the Sydney Olympics and • a visit to Australia by the Director of Viva. The project provided considerable resources to counter all of these and minimise the effects on kangaroo markets. In all such campaigns the project drew extensively on the support of eminent Australian ecologists such as Prof. Michael Archer to defend the industry on sound scientific grounds. To assist in defending the industry against radical attacks a paper outlining the sustainability of the kangaroo harvest and another covering the animal welfare outcomes of the harvest were prepared. These are given in appendix 1. Government and Academic perceptions: The project produced and distributed 12 editions of an industry newsletter, all of which can be accessed at www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/news/news_frame.htm. These are now distributed to over 600 individuals and groups in government or environmental management associated with the kangaroo industry. This newsletter pays strong attention to reinforcing the sustainability and environmental responsibility of the kangaroo industry. Including the kangaroo industry in tertiary training: The KIAA website has been extensively upgraded and is regularly accessed by environmental management academics and students. Its value as such is demonstrated by an unsolicited email received by KIAA from a senior research fellow at an Australian University which commented. “The quality and breadth of the information on your website, particularly the articles by Kelly, is outstanding. I commend the industry for the effort it has made in providing the public with this material, and of course, in the sustainable management of a great resource.” Several tours of kangaroo processing premises and briefings by industry staff for students undertaking environmental studies were co-ordinated. In addition the project directly commented on or contributed to development of wildlife utilisation curricula for Sydney, Maquarie and Western Sydney Universities. Finally a paper on the industry was presented at the International Conference for Veterinary Conservation Biology in Sydney. This is given in appendix 2. In spite of extensive discussion with and enthusiasm from Queensland University, the project was not successful in attracting funding for the development of a CD based compendium of Australian Wildlife utilisation material.

5

4. Discussion Effects on pubic perceptions A review of public opinion surveys suggests that there has been considerable improvement in the general perception of the kangaroo industry by the Australian public during the course of this project. Such surveys of course often need to be taken with a grain of salt, but the trend portrayed across several surveys below seems strong. At least some of this result must be attributable to this project. Public surveys on attitudes to the kangaroo industry

date source question number result surveyed Mar 97 RIRDC Kangaroos are a valuable natural resource and we should use their meat and leather? 503 77% yes

July 00 publicdebate.com Should we be eating kangaroo meat? 7540 75% yes Mar 02 60 Min Is it barbaric to cull kangaroos? 81% no May 02 Herald Sun Should state laws allow commercial use of 1698 87% yes slaughtered kangaroos? Acceptance by Government The Federal Minister for the Environment Dr. David Kemp in a letter to the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia and a subsequent press release, recently gave the strongest support for the kangaroo industry in ‘living memory’ from an Australian Environment Minister. For example the Minister commented: “While the kangaroo industry continues to maintain its high level of humane conduct and operates in a sustainable manner, I will continue to provide strong public support for the industry and to defend the role of the Commonwealth Government in it.” Once again given the intensive effort by this project to cultivate a perception of professionalism and ethical conduct of the kangaroo industry in government circles, it can be assumed that the project contributed towards generating this sentiment. Acceptance by scientific, academic and conservation groups: Over the course of the project the following groups have either released positions statements or made public comments in support of the kangaroo harvest. • The Australian Veterinary Association • The Australasian Wildlife Management Society • Australian Association of Veterinary Conservationists and Biologists • Ecological Society of Australia

6

• Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia • Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland • Conservation Council of South Australia • Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Effects on markets During the course of the project kangaroo meat has been accepted for sale by several supermarket chains in Victoria and Queensland which previously had long standing policies not to stock the product. More significantly though is the recent decision by Coles supermarkets to trial kangaroo in NSW stores prior to a potential national release. Coles in particular has historically had a very strong policy not to stock kangaroo meat. This dates back to a sorry incident in the mid 1980s when Coles Victoria started stocking kangaroo meat products. Following a heated attack on Coles which included, according to industry sources personal threats against Coles Directors, the product line was withdrawn ‘never to be stocked again’. Given this the recent decision by Coles to re-trial kangaroo strongly suggests that public acceptance of the industry is dramatically improving. Once again it can be assumed that this project has contributed to this in some way. Certainly as a result of the project outlets such as David Jones and Safeways continue to stock kangaroo. Had it not been for the resources supplied by this project such outlets would certainly have capitulated to the campaigns launched against them.

5. Recommendations It would seem these projects, and indeed the overall kangaroo industries, policy of taking every opportunity to promote kangaroo utilisation as an environmentally wise and responsible activity has paid dividends in improving the industries image within Australia. Doing so appears to have also facilitated market expansion. It is considered essential that such activity is ongoing within Australia and that resources be made available to sustain a program such as that undertaken by this project. At some stage similar activity should be undertaken in selected export destinations.

7

Appendix 1 Major resource material generated to help defend the kangaroo industry against radical attack Animal Welfare and the Kangaroo Industry The kangaroo industry is often subject to claims from radical animal liberation groups that it is inhumane. These claims are rarely backed up with any scientific evidence, in the few cases where scientifically obtained data is cited it is invariably misrepresented. This paper reviews the regulatory controls over the kangaroo harvest, the evidence concerning its animal welfare outcomes and the claims often made by radical animal liberationists concerning it. The regulatory controls over kangaroo harvesting All kangaroos are harvested by professional shooters. Strict State and Federal Government controls ensure that no kangaroo can enter the commercial industry unless they have been taken by a licensed kangaroo harvester who has passed a TAFE accredited training course which includes training in the animal welfare aspects of kangaroo harvesting. In addition anyone wishing to harvest kangaroos for human consumption must undergo assessment of their accuracy with their firearm. The accreditation and competency assessment are controlled by State Government regulations in each State. All kangaroos must be taken according to the strict guidelines laid out in the Federal Government document ‘Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos’. This specifies the minimum high caliber firearms which can be used, it requires that all animals be head shot and documents procedures for the humane dispatch of any pouch young (CNCM 1990). The evidence concerning welfare outcomes The kangaroo industry has been subject to considerable scrutiny over the years with regard to animal welfare. In fact it has encouraged this. In 1999 the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) successfully lobbied the Federal Minster for Environment, to fund a survey carried out by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) which audited current welfare outcomes in the kangaroo harvest. This is discussed further below. A similar report conducted by the RSPCA in 1985 states: ”If achieved correctly, kangaroo culling is considered one of the most humane forms of animal slaughter. An animal killed instantly within its own environment is under less stress than domestic stock that have been herded, penned, transported etc.” (RSPCA 1985)

8

The report however did consider that the methods used at the time could be improved and made a series of recommendations. At the time they found 85% of kangaroo were head shot. The vast bulk of the remained were heart shot. The RSPCA commented that a heart shot could be considered a humane outcome, but was clearly less desirable than a head shot. With regard to the dispatch of pouch young the RSPCA concluded: “The dispatch of pouch young by professional shooters was generally by a sharp blow to the head or by decapitation. There is no reason to consider this as a cruel act.” (RSPCA 1985) Since 1985 the industry has implemented most of the recommendations put forward by RSPCA to improve the harvest, as well as others which they didn’t think of. The accreditation and assessment of harvesters and an absolute requirement for head shot animals for meat production have seen major improvements. In 1999 the KIAA lobbied the Federal Government to fund a new audit to document the current outcomes. This was conducted during 2000. The report has not yet been published but it seems to be suggesting the ratio of head shots now exceeds 98%. Some very well informed organisations support the kangaroo industry for a wide range of reasons, mostly because they see kangaroos as a more environmentally friendly way to produce meat in Australia than introduced sheep or cattle. However the support of the Australian Veterinary Association is telling in recognition of the animal welfare outcomes of the harvest. The AVA reported to the 1998 Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation: “The Australian Veterinary Association believes that the Australian kangaroo population is a unique and valuable resource and that harvesting is a legitimate and humane use of that resource". (AVA 1998) Other professional bodies supporting the kangaroo harvest include, • Australasian Wildlife Management Society • Ecological Society of Australia • CSIRO • Australian Association of Veterinary Conservation Biologists • Australian Wildlife Protection Society to name a few. The ‘evidence’ of cruelty Radical animal liberationists typically attack the kangaroo industry as ‘cruel and inhumane’, but rarely do they provide any evidence, typically the statement is simply a value judgment made by people who have rarely, if ever seen a kangaroo outside of a wildlife park. Where ‘evidence’ is presented it invariably misrepresents the studies referred to above. For example it is regularly claimed that, “an RSPCA report demonstrated 15% of kangaroos are not killed cleanly and crawl away to die of their wounds.” This is a misrepresentation of the 1984 RSPCA study referred to above. The only place in it where the figure 15% is mentioned in the RSPCA report is stating that 15% are not head shot, it found that most of these were heart shot and that, whilst less desirable than a head shot, “any placement of a bullet in the chest cavity causes instantaneous death” (RSPCA 1985). Other evidence of cruelty often cited is a video of a kangaroo shoot obtained in 1986. This video was taken by a radical animal liberation group who encouraged an unlicensed shooter, who did not have permission to shoot on the property in question to commit gross acts of cruelty to kangaroos whilst they quietly stood by and filmed. The man has since been prosecuted, as probably also would have the animal liberation film crew if they hadn’t left the country. This video is portrayed as

9

representative of the commercial industry, however the shooter was not supplying the kangaroo industry and not involved in it in any way. In the Court case it was revealed that he was actively encouraged by the film crew to commit his illegal actions, who told him they were from an American game shooting magazine. The final hearing of the case in which penalties were handed down was in Dubbo District Court 31 July 1997 NSW NP&WS v Eichner. Conclusion Kangaroo harvesting is a well regulated activity with strict controls to ensure the animal welfare outcomes are as humane as possible. In fact the RSPCA is on record as suggesting that kangaroo harvesting could be one of the most humane slaughter methods possible. They note kangaroos are killed by a high powered bullet to the head in their own environment without any of the stress of trucking, food deprivation etc. involved in beef or lamb slaughter. Against this is simply the poorly informed, emotive opinion of people who are opposed to any form of animal use. Unfortunately these well meaning people are often so passionate about their position that they clutch to and misrepresent anything which they think may strengthen their case. References AVA (1998) Submission to Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation. CNCM (1990) Code of practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos. Environment Australia. RSPCA (1985). Incidence of cruelty to kangaroo. Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service More Information More detailed information on the kangaroo industry is available from the following website references: http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/fs023.pdf http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/kangharv1.html

10

Kangaroo Industry Background John Kelly, B. Ru Sci. (Hons), Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia. July 2002 Introduction Whilst the sustainability of pastoral activities in much of the Australian arid rangelands is under constant investigation, the fact remains that they are currently supporting a large population of kangaroos which, if uncontrolled, would seriously threaten the economic viability of the pastoral industry and the environmental sustainability of huge tracks of land (Caughley 1998). These are extremely fragile areas which can support a limited number of grazing animals. Allowing the grazing pressure from all animals to increase is one of the most serious environmental hazards in the rangelands. The kangaroo Management Plan is the only tool currently available to exercise control over the kangaroo contribution to grazing pressure. Furthermore, the kangaroo population represents a resource. There is extensive ethical debate concerning the morality of utilising wildlife as a resource. This debate however, rarely examines the moral imperative for nations to utilise their resources to the best effect in supplying the world with the food and commodities it needs. Over the past 30 years a significant industry has developed which utilises the kangaroo resource. Initially its focus was largely on pest control for the pastoral industries. However over the last decade there has been a growing realisation that the kangaroo industry has significant economic and environmental benefits. The kangaroo industry currently generates in excess of $200 million per year in income and employs over 4,000 people. The vast bulk of these jobs are in remote rural communities, many of which would not exist without the industry. This document examines the scientific evidence indicating the kangaroo harvest is sustainable and the controls in place to protect the animals it utilises. Contents 1. Kangaroo populations 2. The harvest quota setting process 3. Licensing controls over kangaroo harvesters 4. Monitoring of the system 5. Environmental impacts of utilising kangaroo 6. Environmental impacts of NOT utilising kangaroos 7. Animal Welfare 8. Public support for a model of sustainable utilisation 9. Conclusion

11

1. Kangaroo Populations There are 48 species of macropods (kangaroos) in Australia. Of these only 5 can be commercially harvested. In addition 2 species of wallaby are harvested in Tasmania. Over 99% of the commercial kangaroo harvest occurs in the arid grazing rangelands. The populations of kangaroos in these areas are estimated every year in each State by well developed aerial survey techniques. It must be understood that these are sparsely timbered, if at all, savannah type ecosystems. Hence it is possible to fly over them and count the large animals such as kangaroos seen. Using either low flying fixed wing aircraft or helicopters, flying at heights of 2-300 meters the National Parks Authorities count the numbers of kangaroos seen over fixed transects. Thirty years of such monitoring have allowed them to develop sophisticated and accurate techniques of extrapolating out to total population numbers (Grigg and Pople 2001). Kangaroos are one of only a very few species (including humans) who have an annual census of their populations. The 2002 population estimate for the commercially harvested kangaroo species released by the federal government puts their numbers at 58.6 million. This means there are more than twice as many kangaroos in Australia as there are cattle (28.7 million). It also means the total kangaroo population is a little more than half that of the Australian sheep population (113.3 million) (ABARE 2002).

Kangaroo Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1897

1898

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

Year

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

ns)

Fig 1: Kangaroos are one of the most numerous large wild land mammals on earth. (data source Australian government records) The current kangaroo population is the highest ever recorded and it unquestionably makes kangaroos amongst the most common large wild land mammals on earth. It is widely accepted that within the rangelands kangaroos are now more common than ever. This situation has arisen due to the increased food and water supply generated by the activities of the sheep and cattle industry. Prior to European settlement these areas had very few places of surface water from which kangaroos could drink. The pastoral industry has tapped into below ground water supplies to the point where now very few points in the rangelands are further that 3 km from a permanent water source and no point is further than 10 km (Landsburg 1999). It must be recognised that the stable and recently increasing population of kangaroos shown in figure one is in spite of annual harvests of kangaroos in excess of 2 million/year throughout the period portrayed. The same picture emerges for individual species. It is often claimed that red kangaroos are under significant pressure from the kangaroo industry. However as demonstrated below their

12

populations are also stable and recently dramatically increasing.

Red Kangaroo Population Growth

0

5

10

15

20

1990199119921993199419951996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Pop

ulat

ion

in M

illio

Year

Fig 2: An animal with a population of 17 million can hardly be ‘threatened’. (data source Australian government records) 2. The Harvest Quota Setting Process For any kangaroo species to be harvested the States National Parks Authority must have a detailed Management Plan approved by the Federal conservation Department, Environment Australia (EA). These Plans must detail the population monitoring and quota setting controls, the controls over the take and they must be renewed every 5 years. Each year after the population estimate is obtained, each Management Plan will set a maximum allowable take (quota) of between 10-15% of total population. The populations fluctuate depending on seasonal conditions, during droughts they can decline, or they can increase dramatically during good seasons as has been the case in recent years. The States Authority will then issue individually and sequentially numbered plastic lockable tags. These tags are designed to ensure that once properly applied any tampering with them will be perfectly obvious. Each kangaroo taken by licensed harvesters must have such a tag fixed to it and the harvester and processor must report back to the Authorities on a monthly basis the details of the exact numbers of tags they have used, where the tags were used and what species, sex and weight of animal they were attached to. The Authority monitors the release and use of tags to ensure the harvest in any one area does not exceed the quota. The complexity and detail of the controls in the Management Plans can be indicated by a brief examination of the NSW Plan. It divides the State into 15 different zones, 14 in which commercial kangaroo harvesting is allowed and one comprising over one third of the State in which no harvesting can take place. The population is estimated in each individual zone and a harvest quota allocated to it. An appropriate number of tags are then issued to the conservation authority Managers in each zone and these can only be obtained by kangaroo harvesters on two days of each month. The harvester must use and submit reports for all of his tags issued before more can be obtained and the issue of tags by zone is closely monitored. As soon as the harvest in any one zone approaches the quota it is closed to commercial activity for the rest of the year (NPWS 2001). As a result of the record 2002 population Environment Australia recently approved a large jump in the commercial quota for kangaroos, increasing it to 6.94 million. This attracted considerable press coverage. However this is only the maximum allowable take, it does not represent the number which will actually be harvested and it is unlikely any more kangaroos will actually be harvested than the 3.5 million which were last year when the quota was 5.53 million. But it must be remembered that

13

even if the full quota was taken it would have no undue impact on the kangaroo population since the quota represents the maximum sustainable yield. The quota setting process is independent of industry and commercial influences. For example in 1996 the New South Wales industry harvested virtually its full allocated quota. In fact in several regions the harvest closed well before the end of the year because the quota had been taken. All market predictions indicated that during 1997 industry demand would actually increase because it could readily sell considerably more than the 1996 quota. Despite this and due to seasonal conditions the 1997 quota was set lower than that for 1996. Clearly market forces have no impact on the quota setting process.

14

The chart below shows that quotas fluctuate significantly, not in response to industry demands but in response to population fluctuations due to seasonal conditions.

02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,000

10,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,00022,000,00024,000,00026,000,00028,000,00030,000,00032,000,00034,000,000

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

QuotaHarvest Figures

Figure 3: Harvest quotas fluctuate with population independently of demand. Population, quota and harvest levels for red and grey kangaroos only (Pople and Grigg 2001) 3. Licensing Controls over Kangaroo Harvesters In order to purchase the tags issued by the Authorities an individual must be licensed as a kangaroo harvester. To do so they must undergo training delivered by government accredited agencies and approved by the Australian TAFE (Tertiary and Further Education) agency in the appropriate State. This training covers the regulatory controls and compliance requirements, the animal welfare controls and the hygiene controls each harvester must adhere to. They must then pass assessment in their knowledge and practices relating to these controls by two separate Government Departments. This will include assessment of their competency with their firearm. Then and only then will they be able to obtain the required licenses from the two Authorities concerned. It is a condition of every kangaroo harvesters license that he adhere to the strict guidelines laid out in the Federal Government document ‘Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos’. This specifies the minimum high caliber firearms which can be used, it requires that all animals be head shot and documents procedures for the humane dispatch of any pouch young (CNCM 1990). In NSW for example adherence to this Code represents condition one of the licenses which are issued under the National Parks and Wildlife Act - section 123 (NPWS 2001).

15

Any kangaroo or kangaroo product accepted by processors, be it for meat or skins, must have an approved tag applied to it and be supplied by a licensed harvester. Each processor must report on a monthly basis to the State Authority the numbers of kangaroos purchased, who from and the relevant tags numbers. 4. Monitoring of the System The claim is often made by anti kangaroo industry campaigners that the level of compliance with the controls is not monitored. Compare this with the number of inspection made by the NSW meat hygiene authority, Safe Food NSW. This authority controls compliance with the meat hygiene requirements and as documented in the NSW Kangaroo Management Plan, has a statutory requirement to monitor compliance with the requirements of the Management Plan (NPWS 2001). During the 11 months prior to May 2002 Safe Food NSW made the following number of inspections of kangaroo industry facilities: facility type inspections made pet food transport vans 76 kangaroo carcass holding chillers 621 kangaroo harvesting vehicles 1,076 kangaroo processing plants 65 total inspections 1,838 average no. inspections/day 5.6 (Safe Foods NSW 2002) By anyone’s standard a very high level of monitoring!

5. Environmental Impacts of Utilising Kangaroos The Kangaroo Management Plans have been operating under strict and intensive supervision for almost 30 years. Over this period the average harvest per year has been in excess of 2 million animals. In many respects we know the actual environmental impact of utilising kangaroos. Intensive use and scientific effort have answered the questions of potential impact and enabled industry to defend itself based on demonstrated science.

5.1 Population sustainability As already discussed Figure 1 shows data collected over a 20 year period by Environment Australia on the total kangaroo population. Despite harvests in excess of 2 million animals per year throughout this period the kangaroo population has consistently increased. It is in fact higher now than at any other time during intensive monitoring. It is a very graphic representation of the sustainability of the harvest. In terms of kangaroo population the harvest is sustainable on a national basis. Extensive data indicates it is also sustainable on a regional basis and that the quota setting process allows for the effects of drought and other influences on the population. For example in NSW during

16

the drought years of 1981-85 populations of red, eastern grey and western grey kangaroos fell by 57%, 72% and 54% respectively. During this period the quotas were reduced by similar levels. However following the good seasons of 1985-87 populations increased by 76%, 233% and 96% for the three respective species, more than making up the losses during the drought (Fletcher et al 1990). On an even smaller regional basis harvest rates of up to 40% (much higher than the national average) have been shown to have no effect on red kangaroo populations on individual Queensland properties (Pople 1996). A recently conducted project which employed extensive field study and highly sophisticated computer modeling techniques has provided considerable light on why kangaroo populations are so resilient to harvesting. The project examined harvester activity and modeled it in response to terrain and prices paid for kangaroos harvested. It demonstrated that in the areas investigated and at current prices, 20-40% of any one property will rarely be visited by a kangaroo harvester because the terrain is too rough or other limitations make it not economic for him to do so. These areas then become ‘refugia’, areas in which the resident kangaroo population is never harvested and from which the population expands to re-populate areas which are harvested (NSW Dept. Ag. 2002). The project further demonstrated that on the broader scale there are more extensive regions in which it is not economic for kangaroo harvesters to operate. In NSW for example it suggests that even at highly inflated prices for kangaroos, some 5% of the kangaroo population will be contained in large regional refugia which are never harvested. Add to this the kangaroos in national parks (in which no harvesting can take place) and 8% of the states kangaroo will never be visited by harvesters (NSW Dept. Ag. 2002). These are in addition to the smaller property based refugia previously discussed and clearly shows a significant proportion of the population is always left behind to supplement normal breeding in the harvested areas. Finally the computer modeling demonstrated that even at inflated prices, kangaroo harvesting can never threaten the species. It has shown that relative to the effort required to harvest them, kangaroos are never likely to be valuable enough to harvest them down to levels which would threaten species viability. Quite simply once numbers drop below certain levels it is no longer economic to continue harvesting. These levels are well above threshold levels under which the species would be consider under threat. The authors conclude: “Models presented here suggest that kangaroo populations may be more resilient to harvesting than we had previously thought” (McLeod et al 2001)

17

5.2 Effects on the species The argument is often mooted that kangaroo harvesting selects the largest animals and will therefore affect the genetic fitness of the species. The scientific data strongly refutes this argument. Four separate reports have recently provided considerable evidence to show these claims are mere unfounded supposition. 1) An examination of the question submitted to the NSW National parks and Wildlife Service in

2001 concluded: “Currently, there is no evidence of real or potential genetic ‘deterioration’ due to harvesting, nor any reason to suspect it. Indeed, indications are that kangaroo numbers would have to be reduced to extremely low levels for genetic impacts to become important and by then other impacts, such as demographic disruption, would be overridingly important” (Olsen and Braysher 2001) 2) A extensive report into factors affecting genetic makeup in kangaroos by the University of

Queensland concluded that: “The effects of the commercial harvest are therefore unlikely to produce genetic changes in the population. First, the heritability of the characters in question is low. Second, the selection differential is low because differences in fitness between younger and older adult males is small, older males do not appear to monopolise matings, only a small proportion of older males are selected against (so most animals are in the selected group), and only a small proportion of the population is harvested.” (Hale 2001) 3) A study of Queensland kangaroo populations harvested at rates of 0 to 30% has shown no

differences in the genetic diversity of the various populations. That is, intensively harvested populations show no reductions in genetic diversity compared to unharvested ones (Pople 1996). This study also cites information showing virtual uniformity of genetic codes across widely dispersed kangaroo populations, suggesting the extensive harvesting to date has had no effect on the species.

4) A soon to be published study has applied extremely sophisticated computer modeling techniques

to kangaroo populations dynamics. It has demonstrated that even after several hundred years of intensive harvesting there would be no impact on the genetic makeup of the population. A large cause of this being that there are always areas of rugged terrain in which kangaroos are never harvested (refugia) and migration of animals and their genetic material out of these areas offsets any selection which may occur through harvesting (NSW Dept. Ag. 2002)

Quite clearly the balance of credible opinion and evidence suggests kangaroo harvesting has no significant impact on the genetic makeup of the population. 6. Environmental Impacts of NOT Utilising Kangaroos The rangeland environment of Australia, in which the vast bulk of the kangaroo population lives, also supports a wide range of other domestic, indigenous and feral grazing animals. It is a fragile region highly susceptible to overgrazing and resultant land degradation. In order to manage this environment the concept of total grazing pressure (TGP) has been developed. This sets for any one region the upper grazing pressure it can sustain and the mix of various animals which will generate that pressure. This management system requires that all animals contributing to the grazing pressure be controlled. Kangaroos typically represent 30% of TGP (Pople and Grigg 2001). If domestic stock numbers are set at estimated sustainable levels yet kangaroo numbers are uncontrolled the total

18

grazing pressure will also increase and the environmental sustainability of the region will be placed at risk. Thus the kangaroo industry actually plays a significant role in ensuring the environmental sustainability of these regions by providing a tool for managing one of the largest contributors to total grazing pressure. In its absence, the kangaroo population would be at least 30% higher (Caughley et al 1987) and the risk of desertification and wide spread loss of biodiversity high. The kangaroo industry plays a positive role in protecting biodiversity in the rangelands. Indeed several trials have clearly indicated that an uncontrolled total grazing pressure presents a major extinction threat to a huge range of biodiversity (Caughley et al 1987). This has clearly been demonstrated in work done at Hattah-Kulkyne National Park. Kangaroos can not be commercially harvested in National Parks, as a result their numbers often rise to staggering levels which sometimes require culling programs to be used. In biodiversity monitoring done following a cull at Hattah-Kulkyne increased abundance of 20 rare or threatened plant species was recorded in culled areas compared with unculled areas (Sluiter et al 1997).

7. Animal Welfare The kangaroo industry is often subject to claims from radical animal liberation groups that it is inhumane. These claims are rarely backed up with any scientific evidence, in the few cases where scientifically obtained data is cited it is invariably misrepresented. 7.1 The regulatory controls over kangaroo harvesting All kangaroos are harvested by professional shooters. Strict State and Federal Government controls ensure that no kangaroo can enter the commercial industry unless they have been taken by a licensed kangaroo harvester who has passed a TAFE accredited training course which includes training in the animal welfare aspects of kangaroo harvesting. In addition anyone wishing to harvest kangaroos for human consumption must undergo assessment of their accuracy with their firearm. The accreditation and competency assessment are controlled by State Government regulations in each State. All kangaroos must be taken according to the strict guidelines laid out in the Federal Government document ‘Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos’. This specifies the minimum high caliber firearms which can be used, it requires that all animals be head shot and documents procedures for the humane dispatch of any pouch young (CNCM 1990).

19

7.2 The evidence concerning welfare outcomes The kangaroo industry has been subject to considerable scrutiny over the years with regard to animal welfare. In fact it has encouraged this. In 1999 the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) successfully lobbied the Federal Minster for Environment to fund a survey carried out by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) which audited current welfare outcomes in the kangaroo harvest. This is discussed further below. A similar report conducted by the RSPCA in 1985 states: ”If achieved correctly, kangaroo culling is considered one of the most humane forms of animal slaughter. An animal killed instantly within its own environment is under less stress than domestic stock that have been herded, penned, transported etc.” (RSPCA 1985) The report however did consider that the methods used at the time could be improved and made a series of recommendations. At the time they found 85% of kangaroo were head shot. The vast bulk of the remained were heart shot. The RSPCA commented that a heart shot could be considered a humane outcome, but was clearly less desirable than a head shot. With regard to the dispatch of pouch young the RSPCA concluded: “The dispatch of pouch young by professional shooters was generally by a sharp blow to the head or by decapitation. There is no reason to consider this as a cruel act.” (RSPCA 1985) Since 1985 the industry has implemented most of the recommendations put forward by RSPCA to improve the harvest, as well as others which they didn’t think of. The accreditation and assessment of harvesters and an absolute requirement for head shot animals for meat production have seen major improvements. In 1999 the KIAA lobbied the Federal Government to fund a new audit to document the current outcomes. This was conducted during 2001 and the report released in July 2002. It concludes: "These results demonstrate that there has clearly been an improvement in the humanness of the commercial killing of kangaroos compared with that recorded in the 1985 Report. In 1985 the overall proportion of head-shot kangaroos in Australia was estimated to be 86%. In 2000/2002, it was 95.9%". (RSPCA 2002). However the overall head shot ration needs a little clarification. The vast majority of non-head shots (reported by RSPCA as body shots) were high in the neck at the base of the skull and it appears the result of harvesters deliberately targeting this site. Of 5083 kangaroos surveyed by RSPCA, only 10 (0.2%) were actual body shots in neither the head nor neck. Industry can claim that 99.8% of kangaroos are shot in the head region exactly where the harvester aims. Throughout the report the RSPCA clearly recognise and endorse industries animal welfare approach. For example at 3.2 RSPCA state:

20

"It was clear from the responses given that, not only have the kangaroo management agencies adopted the criteria of head-shot only, but the industry also uses a similar standard." Some very well informed organisations support the kangaroo industry for a wide range of reasons, mostly because they see kangaroos as a more environmentally friendly way to produce meat in Australia than introduced sheep or cattle. However the support of the Australian Veterinary Association is telling in recognition of the animal welfare outcomes of the harvest. The AVA reported to the 1998 Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation: “The Australian Veterinary Association believes that the Australian kangaroo population is a unique and valuable resource and that harvesting is a legitimate and humane use of that resource". (AVA 1998) 7.3 The ‘evidence’ of cruelty Radical animal liberationists typically attack the kangaroo industry as ‘cruel and inhumane’, but rarely do they provide any evidence, rather the statement is simply a value judgment made by people who have rarely, if ever, seen a kangaroo outside of a wildlife park. Where ‘evidence’ is presented it invariably misrepresents the studies referred to above. For example it is regularly claimed that, “an RSPCA report demonstrated 15% of kangaroos are not killed cleanly and crawl away to die of their wounds.” This is a misrepresentation of the 1984 RSPCA study referred to above. The only place in it where the figure 15% is mentioned in the RSPCA report is stating that at the time,15% were not head shot. The study found that most of these were heart shot and that, whilst less desirable than a head shot, “any placement of a bullet in the chest cavity causes instantaneous death” (RSPCA 1985). As mentioned previously things have improved dramatically since this study and the more recent audit demonstrates head shot rates now above 98%. Other evidence of cruelty often cited is a video of a kangaroo shoot obtained in 1986. This video was taken by a radical animal liberation group who encouraged an unlicensed shooter, who did not have permission to shoot on the property in question to commit gross acts of cruelty to kangaroos whilst they quietly stood by and filmed. The man has since been prosecuted, as probably also would have the animal liberation film crew if they hadn’t left the country. This video is portrayed as representative of the commercial industry, however the shooter was not involved in it in any way involved in the commercial industry. In the court case in which he was prosecuted it was revealed that he was actively encouraged to commit his illegal actions by the film crew. They told him they were from an American game shooting magazine. The final hearing of the case in which penalties were handed down was in Dubbo District Court 31 July 1997 NSW NP&WS v Eichner.

8 Public Support for a Model of Sustainable Utilisation Numerous professional and credible environmental management organisations have published guidelines for the sustainable utilisation of wildlife resources including:

* CSIRO * Australasian Wildlife Management Society * International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) * World Wide Fund for Nature.

In all cases the kangaroo harvest fits perfectly or very tightly to the criteria for sustainable utilisation. Indeed the first two organisations have openly endorsed the kangaroo industry as fitting their criteria. For example CSIRO (Australia’s peak scientific research body) states:

21

"Kangaroo harvesting clearly meets most of the principals of sustainable use of wildlife" (CSIRO 1998). The Australasian Wildlife Management Society, the peak representative body for professionals actively involved in wildlife management, state: "AWMS supports the idea of achieving a conservation benefit from a government regulated, high value, sustainable kangaroo industry" (AWMS 1998). Even many non government ‘conservation’ groups are vocal in supporting the utilisation of kangaroos. The South Australia Nature Conservation Society told a Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation that: “We are in full agreement that regulated commercial utilisation e.g. Kangaroo harvesting, on private lands are a potent driving force for the retention of habitats.” (SANCS 1997) Indeed many Australian NGO’s dedicated purely to wildlife preservation support commercial kangaroo harvesting as delivering conservation benefits. The Australian Wild Life Preservation Society is actually the oldest conservation NGO in Australia, and regularly comment on the industry. “There is no problems with harvesting native wildlife given adequate controls as well as no cruelty in the gathering.” (WLPS 1998) The level of support for the kangaroo harvest amongst professional Australian ecologists and conservationists sometimes astounds international commentators. Public groups vocal in supporting the industry or with position papers in support of kangaroo use include: • The Australian Veterinary Association • The Australasian Wildlife Management Society • Australian Association of Veterinary Conservationists and Biologists • Ecological Society of Australia • Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia • Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland • Conservation Council of South Australia • Nature Conservation Society of South Australia

8.1 Public support for the kangaroo harvest Research has indicated that the majority of the Australian public also support the sustainable utilisation of kangaroos. Market research published by RIRDC has shown that in response to the question "Do you think kangaroos are a valuable natural resource and we should make use of their meat and leather", 77% of Australians said yes, 16% had no opinion whilst only 4% said no (RIRDC 1998). The study also demonstrated that over 50% of Australians have tried kangaroo meat. The results of a range of public surveys on attitudes to the kangaroo industry are given below. Some of these are media generated response polls, these types of surveys need to be interpreted carefully. However they do suggest overwhelming public support for kangaroo harvesting in Australia.

22

Public surveys on attitudes to the kangaroo industry date source question number result surveyed Mar 97RIRDC Kangaroos are a valuable natural resource and

we should use their meat and leather? 503 77% yes

8% unsure

July 00 publicdebate.com Should we be eating kangaroo meat? 7540 75% yes 5% unsure Mar 02 60 Minutes Is it barbaric to cull kangaroos? 81% no May 02 Herald Sun Should state laws allow commercial use of 1698 87% yes slaughtered kangaroos? 8.2. Kangaroo utilisation and a new ecological model. Australia is a vastly different environment to the 'Old World'. The major influence on its weather patterns is the El Nino effect. This produces extremely variable and unpredictable seasonal conditions. The Northern Hemisphere in contrast, although subject to wide variations within a year has a very repeatable set of seasons between years. The unpredictability of an El Nino climate has resulted in vastly different environmental systems than those of the Northern Hemisphere (Flannery 1996). To date agricultural development in Australia has largely been based on modified European systems, using European animals. In recent decades this Eurocentric view has come under considerable academic question. A ground swell of opinion is developing that we should develop management systems adapted to our specific environmental conditions, not impose systems adapted to the Old World. Under this philosophy utilisation of free ranging populations of native animals adapted to the environment makes enormous environmental wisdom. To this end the Australian Museum has implemented a major new project aimed at encouraging the development of farm enterprises based on utilising native plants and animals. The project intends to monitor the environment benefits that accrue from doing so.

23

9. Conclusion Kangaroo harvesting is a controversial topic and inspires considerable passion and debate both for and against. Those for, can demonstrate that it is both sustainable and a necessary tool in environmental management. They argue that in a protein starved world it is morally indefensible not to utilise animals that must be culled anyway. Many are also now coming to the view that kangaroo production offers a more sustainable method of land use in the rangeland environment than grazing sheep or cattle, that it has the potential to offer greater conservation benefits past those which it currently delivers. It offers the opportunity to release Australia from the shackles of Eurocentric management systems. The kangaroo industry believes it is a model of wise environmental management and this belief is supported by the analysis extensive scientific data and the support of a wide range of professional scientific bodies. Further the industry believes that it points the way forward for a bright new future in the environmental management of this land. It believes that producing our food from the animals and plants which belong here and are adapted to this country makes enormous environmental wisdom. Internet based information on the kangaroo industry For detailed Government fact sheets on the industry and its controls see: http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/fs023.pdf http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/kangharv1.html For a significantly more extensive and eminent discussion of the sustainability of kangaroo harvesting see the background discussion paper to the federal governments Management Plans for kangaroos at: http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/index.html References

• ABARE (2002) Australian Livestock Numbers. Canberra. • Andrew AE 1988. Kangaroo meat - public health aspects. Australian Zoologist, 23(3) • AVA 1998. Submission to Senate Reference Enquiry: Commercial utilisation of native

wildlife (Proof Hansard Report) • AWMS 1998. Submission to Senate Reference Enquiry • Caughley, G.J., Sheppard, N and Short, J. (1987). Kangaroos, their ecology and management

in the rangelands of Australia. Cambridge Uni Press. • CNCM (1990) Code of practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos. Environment

Australia. • CSIRO 1998. Submission to Senate Reference Enquiry • Flannery, T. 1996. The Future Eaters, Reed Publishing. • Fletcher, M., Southwell, c, Sheppard, N, Caughley, G, Grice, D, Grigg, G, and Beard, L.

(1990) Kangaroo population trends in the Australian rangeland, 1980-87. Search vol 21 no1 • Grigg, G, Pople, A, Hale, P McCallum, H (1998) Reference committee submission. • Landsburg, J (1999). The effects of artificial sources of water on rangeland biodiversity.

CSIRO Div. Wildlife and Ecology, Biodiversity Technical Paper no 3. • Hale, P. (2001) Kangaroo genetics, Impacts of Harvesting. Conservation Biology Program,

The Ecology Center, University of Queensland, Brisbane • Hopwood P and Martin P. 1991. Report to the NSW Meat Industry Authority on zoonosis of

pigs and lambs and their implications for public health.

24

• McLeod, S.R, Hacker, R.B. and Druhan, J.P. (2001) Sustainable management of age-structured kangaroo populations

• NPWS (1997) Dubbo District Court transcripts 31 July 1997 NSW NP&WS v Eichner. • NPWS (2001) Kangaroo Management Program. State Printers • NSW Dept. Agriculture (2002). Evaluating Alternative Management Strategies for

Kangaroos in the Murray Darling Basin. Cited with permission R.B. Hacker, NSW Dept Ag • Olsen, P. and Braysher, M (2001) Situation Analysis Report: Current state of scientific

knowledge on kangaroos in the environment, including ecological and environmental impact and effect of culling. A report for NSW NPWS.

• Pople A (1996) Effects of harvesting upon the demography of red kangaroos in Western Queensland. University of Queensland Thesis.

• Pople, A.R and Grigg, G (2001) Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroo in Australia. Environment Australia. Canberra

• RIRDC (1998). Improving consumer perceptions of kangaroo products, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation. Pub. no97/36.

• RSPCA (1985) Incidence of cruelty to kangaroos, RSPCA Australia. • RSPCA (2002) Kangaroo Shooting Code Compliance. RSPCA Australia. • Safe Foods NSW (2002). Annual Report. • SANCS (1997) Submission to Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation. • Sluiter, I., Allen, G., Morgan, D. and Walker, I. (1997) Vegetation responses to stratified

kangaroo grazing at Hattah-Kulkyne National Park, 1992-96. Dept. Natural Resource, Melb • Wild Life Protection Society 1998. Submission to Senate Reference Enquiry

Viva, a case study in misinformation The organisation, Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, has attacked every livestock industry under the sun. A quick look at their website (www.viva.org.uk) will demonstrate that they will stop at nothing to have humans not do anything at all with any animal species. Their campaign against the kangaroo industry is based around a so called ‘report’, titled Under Fire, which makes a pseudoscientific attempt to portray the kangaroo industry as unsustainable and morally corrupt. The Vegetarians International ‘report’ is highly emotive, cites little scientific evidence, is based on peoples opinions and treats the truth very casually to say the least. The ‘reports’ general level of reliability can quickly be demonstrated by a close look at its opening paragraph. This states: “The official kill rate (of kangaroos) for export in 2001 is 5.5 million animals, slaughtered mainly for their skin and meat. Official statistics ignore the millions of joeys (young kangaroos) who also die when their mothers are shot, which vastly increases the true scale of the slaughter. When non-commercial and illegal kills are included, together with the large number of road kills, the figure is in the region of 10 million.” The official commercial quota of kangaroos which could be killed in 2001 was indeed 5.5 million. HOWEVER this merely represents the total allowable commercial take. The actual number harvested was 3.392 million (see the Australian Government records at http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/quota/2001.html). Viva are deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting data and playing with words. Further they add another 5 million to the ‘legal kill rate’ without citing at any place in the report any reliable evidence to support such numbers. The claim made in the ‘reports’ very first paragraph, represents hearsay and a play on words. In the light of this how can any of the rest of the document be trusted? Viva make a broad rash of claims against the kangaroo industry. Some are examined in detail below. Viva suggest kangaroo harvesting is unsustainable.

25

One of Viva’s principal claims is that the kangaroo industry threatens the survival of the commercially harvested kangaroos and risks driving them extinct. As has already been noted they mis-represent the allowable take as the actual current kangaroo harvest. However at no point do they note that the quota is the maximum sustainable yield of the population. It represents 10-12% of the population and is carefully calculate so that is even if the quota was taken it would not threaten population numbers. Details of this process are given in Kangaroo Industry Background. Further Viva cite information on the non-commercial kill from 16 years ago as representative of current practices. The do not acknowledge that as the commercial take has increased in recent years, the non-commercial pest mitigation kill has decreased. For example in South Australia a supplementary quota is issued as a part of the total quota. This can be used for non-commercial pest mitigation, it has dropped from 505,000 in 1997 to 297,920 in 2001 (see http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/stats.html). Similarly the Viva report cites a ‘quote’ from a supposed National Parks officer without providing a reference from which the quote has been sourced. This hardly represents sound scientific reporting. At no point do Viva note that the population estimates produced by well refined scientific processes show a stable, and recently dramatically increasing kangaroo population.

Kangaroo Population

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1897

1898

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2001

2002

Year

Popu

latio

n (m

illio

ns)

In fact the current estimated population of 58.6 million is the highest ever and means there are more than twice as many kangaroos in Australia as there are cattle! This in spite of the rising commercial harvest, clearly making a mockery of the Viva claim, ”there are worrying signs of populations falling today”. As an attack on the quota setting process Viva in their ‘report’ claim: “you would expect sizable fluctuations in state quotas to accommodate the rise and fall in kangaroo numbers. The general trend has been a steady increase in state kills since the 1970s. Even in 1982 to 83, during a severe drought which caused kangaroo numbers to drop to 11 million; the kangaroo quotas were set at more than 3 million annually.” The reliability of this claim can easy be dismissed by the graph below clearly showing quotas

26

fluctuating dramatically with population estimates (Popple and Grigg 2001).

02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,000

10,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,00022,000,00024,000,00026,000,00028,000,00030,000,00032,000,00034,000,000

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

QuotaHarvest Figures

27

Viva claim kangaroo harvesting is cruel Central to viva’s allegations of cruelty in the kangaroo harvest is video footage obtained by a film crew commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 1994. Viva claim it shows an ‘experienced, unlicensed but commercial killer’ and represent it as portraying standard industry practice. The film does show extreme acts of cruelty being committed against kangaroos. However it came to light in prosecutions against the shooter in the film, that he was not a licensed kangaroo shooter, was not supplying kangaroos to the commercial industry, did not have permission to shoot on the property he was filmed on and was actually entrapped into performing his misdeeds by the film crew telling him they were from an American game shooters magazine (NPWS 1997). The disturbing thing about the entire incident is the fact that the so called animal welfarists encouraged him to commit his misdeeds and stood by whilst he did so without attempting to stop him. The only thing preventing them from being prosecuted being that they left the country. Elsewhere in their ‘report’ Viva claim that the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, “is a guideline for shooters to follow but lacks any clout in law”. This is clearly not the case since adherence to it is a condition of every kangaroo harvesting license, for example in the State of New South Wales harvester licenses state at condition number one: “All kangaroos must be shot in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos.” These licenses are issued under the National parks and Wildlife Act 1974 - section 123, thus clearly giving the Code legal enforceability. Failure to adhere to the Code can lead to the license (and livelihood) being removed (NPWS 2001). Viva also claim the Code allows for the use of shotguns. However no State allows shotguns to be used for the commercial harvest of kangaroos. Only one state, Tasmania, allows the use of shotguns at all, and then only in recreational and strictly non-commercial shooting. Another example of Viva’s unfortunate propensity to play with words and mis-represent the truth. In yet another example of twisting the truth Viva claim: “Kangaroos are supposed to be killed by licensed shooters who are supposed to understand a Code of Practice governing the killing. The statement above implies that all kangaroos killed for meat/skin are shot by professional shooters. This is not the case. In fact, according to the Australian Wildlife Protection Council many shooters are itinerant part-timers.” Yes, many harvesters only do so on a part time basis. However for any harvester to be licensed he must have passed a rigorous assessment and accreditation procedure by two Government Departments, which includes assessment of his competency with his firearm. Thus all licensed harvesters are professional and competent, be they full time or part time. The document Kangaroo Harvesting Background deals with animal welfare in the kangaroo harvest in detail. As does a soon to be released RSPCA report which demonstrates extremely high levels of compliance with the Code of Practice. In a major survey across all states in which kangaroo are harvested commercially, it shows head shot rates in excess of 98%, with the balance being largely high in the neck and equally effective (Denny pers com). However all things can always be improved and the kangaroo industry early in 2002 requested the Minister to initiate a review of the Code to further improve the welfare outcomes in the harvest.

28

Viva claim the harvest threatens the genetic integrity of kangaroos The claim that harvesting is weakening the genetic strength of the kangaroo population is one of the most disingenuous of Viva’s claims. The only evidence brought forward to support it are vague comments made in 1999 by one scientist about possible effects. Compare this with four major studies by respected scientists who have looked deeply into the question. 1) An examination of the question submitted to the NSW National parks and Wildlife Service in

2001 concluded: “Currently, there is no evidence of real or potential genetic ‘deterioration’ due to harvesting, nor any reason to suspect it. Indeed, indications are that kangaroo numbers would have to reduced to extremely low levels for genetic impacts to become important and by then other impacts, such as demographic disruption, would be overridingly important” (Olsen and Braysher 2001) 2) A extensive report into factors affecting genetic makeup in kangaroos by the University of

Queensland concluded that: “The effects of the commercial harvest are therefore unlikely to produce genetic changes in the population. First, the heritability of the characters in question is low. Second, the selection differential is low because differences in fitness between younger and older adult males is small, older males do not appear to monopolise matings, only a small proportion of older males are selected against (so most animals are in the selected group), and only a small proportion of the population is harvested.” (Hale 2001) 3) A study of Queensland kangaroo populations harvested at rates of 0 to 30% has shown no

differences in the genetic diversity of the various populations. That is intensively harvested populations show no reductions in genetic diversity compared to unharvested ones (Pople 1996). This study also cites information showing virtual uniformity of genetic codes across widely dispersed kangaroo populations, suggesting there has been no effect by the extensive harvesting to date on the species.

4) A soon to be published study has applied extremely sophisticated computer modeling to

demonstrate that even after several hundred years of intensive harvesting there would be no impact on the genetic makeup of the population. A large cause of this being that there are always areas of rugged terrain in which kangaroos are never harvested (refugia) and migration of animals and their genetic material out of these areas offset any selection which may occur through harvesting (Hacker pers com)

29

Viva claim their protests have had a major impact on the kangaroo industry After reading their material the uniformed could be excused for thinking Viva have all but killed the kangaroo industry. Indeed one headline of their ‘report’ reads, “Viva ends the UK trade”. Once again they are simply playing with words. It is true several supermarkets stopped selling kangaroo in response to Viva’s campaign. Whilst we can make no allegations it’s apparent that some of the most telling elements in this decision were bomb threats and threats of violence to the children of the Directors of the supermarket chains. However there is still a sizable trade in kangaroo meat to the UK, in 2001 this market took almost 20,000 kg. It is also important to note that even at the highest level of imports, immediately before the Viva campaign, the UK market represented only 3% of the total exports of kangaroo meat. Yet Viva attempt to portray their campaign as having had a major impact on the industry. They for example cite a newspaper report of comments from the Manager of a export processor saying it has destroyed their $1 million/year trade to the UK. Viva really should be a little more cautious in their use of newspaper reports and perhaps check the ‘facts’ they claim to portray. The business in question was not, did not, nor ever has supplied kangaroo to the UK. Nor was it a major exporter in any way at the time.

Further Viva claim: “It seems ironic that Australians don't like kangaroo meat and consistently reject it for human consumption”. This completely ignores the fact that human consumption of kangaroo meat has increased 50 fold in Australian over the past 10 years and that it is now widely available in supermarkets and restaurants in every capital city. The extensive public support for the kangaroo industry in Australia is demonstrated in detail in Kangaroo Industry Background. In conclusion This brief examination of the reliability of Viva’s information clearly demonstrates,….it's not. The Viva document ‘Under Fire’ is full of false and misleading information, half truths and outright misrepresentations. The detail above cites only a few, to document all would only bore or outrage most readers. References Hale, P. (2001) Kangaroo genetics, Impacts of Harvesting. Conservation Biology Program, The Ecology Center, University of Queensland, Brisbane NPWS (1997) Dubbo District Court transcripts 31 July 1997 NSW NP&WS v Eichner. NPWS (2001) Kangaroo Management Program. State Printers Olsen, P. and Braysher, M (2001) Situation Analysis Report: Current state of scientific knowledge on kangaroos in the environment, including ecological and environmental impact and effect of culling. A report for NSW NPWS. Pople, A.R. (1996) Effects of harvesting upon the demography of red kangaroos in western Queensland. Univ Old Pople, A.R and Grigg, G (2001) Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroo in Australia. Environment Australia. Canberra

30

Appendix 2 Paper given at International Symposium of Veterinary Conservation Biology

The Swans are Black The Australian kangaroo, sacred, vermin or gastronomic delight John Kelly, B. Ru. Sci., Development Manager Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia PO Box 294 MOWBRAY Australia is the most ancient and isolated of settled of continents, so isolated that is has developed its own unique flora and fauna. So Unique that one of the first Europeans to set eyes on it, a chap called Dirk Hartog, who landed on the West Coast before Jim Cook was even a twinkle in his mothers eyes, wrote in his log book as he sailed away:

"This land is cursed, the animals hop not run the birds run not fly

and the swans are black not white. This land is cursed and I'll have naught more to do with it."

And so he sailed away, and the place was left to itself for another 100 years or so until whole fleets of people with the same attitudes started turning up. People who could see no value in the native plants and animals and who vigorously set to getting rid of them, replacing the native grasses with good European grass and grazing them with good European animals. People who energetically and enthusiastically, bless their soles started, turning the place into how a good European farm should be. In the process the native animals, the animals adapted to the place, became pests, vermin or at best dog tucker. Latter as life became more comfortable an equally well meaning group, but one which I believe saw the animals just as much as an anomaly as did the farmers, decided they should be locked away in National Parks and 'protected', left to their own devices and not disturbed in any way by man. These are the physiological barriers which have been built around our wildlife by a couple of hundred years of blinked, tunnel vision, European settlement. These psychological barriers are firmly entrenched they tell us:

Wildlife are vermin

or Wildlife are sacred,

but certainly Wildlife are not to be viewed in the

same light as European livestock But thankfully for the sake of the environmental well-being of this land attitudes have started to change in recent decades, both domestically and internationally. Locally many of our notable ecologists have realised that Australia is vastly different to the Old World. Different in almost every respect, that our climate is driven by El Nino effects and subject to huge variability, Old World

31

climates whilst variable between seasons are highly predictable between years. That our soils are amongst the most ancient and fragile on earth. These realisations about the fundamentals of the Australian environment has lead to a school of thought attempting to develop production systems which fit in with our ecology, indeed which even find a place for the animals which are adapted to the land, rather than relying on introduced sheep and cattle. On the international scene in the early 1970's, the United Nations International Union for the Conservation of Nature looked closely at the threats to wildlife world wide. They produced a resolution calling for conservation through sustainable utilisation, the fundamental thinking being that if wildlife has a commercial value there will be commercial incentives to maintain both it and the ecology which it depends on. Within the details of this resolution the IUCN produced a series of guidelines for sustainable utilisation, these have been summarised into 6 'rules of thumb' (IUCN 1980). In the mean time the commercial sector has been doing what it does best and simply getting on with things. Commercial harvesting of kangaroos started in a serious way in the late 1960's. The justification was as pest control for farmers and the meat product was sold as pet food. The industry has grown through good and bad times since then to the stage where for the last 15 years the total productivity has increased at an average rate of 5%/year.

Growth in Kangaroo Harvest 1985 - 1995

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Ani

mals m

Year

Total industry worth during this time would have increased even more than this due to increasing proportion of meat production going to human consumption rather than pet food. There are very few Australian industries of any sort, let alone rural ones, which can match this sort of sustained growth rate.

32

Kangaroo meat is exported to over 40 different countries with total meat exports now exceeding 5 million kg/year. In addition domestic consumption has been steadily increasing and the low fat nature of the product is generating a following amongst the health conscious. Kangaroo leather is recognised world wide as being the strongest light weight leather available. It is the product of first choice for the manufacture of high grade sporting shoes, for example the vast bulk of goals kicked in world class soccer are kicked with kangaroo leather. Nationally the industry is worth some AUD$200 million per year and employs some 4000 people (KIAA 1997). The calculation of kangaroo industry worth does not include the value it continues to deliver to the pastoral sector in decreasing the competition for available feed between sheep and kangaroos. For example a recent project has estimated that in the mulga lands a long term harvest at maximum sustainable yield (about 10% of population) may increase wool yields per head by as much as 25% (Hacker et al 2000). Nor does it include a value for maintenance of environmental values. The kangaroo harvest is the only tool available to control the kangaroo component of Total Grazing Pressure (TGP), a critical management index in the arid rangelands. Too high a TGP can quickly lead to biodiversity loss, for example kangaroo culling programs in Hattah-Kulkyne National Park have demonstrated increased abundance of many rare and threatened plant species in areas where kangaroo numbers have been reduced from very high levels (Sluiter et al 1997). With annual harvests exceeding 3 million animals per year the kangaroo industry is probably the largest land based consumptive wildlife industry in the world. This is where many people start to feel uncomfortable. 3 million roos per year, is that possibly sustainable? However if we look at the historical data we can quickly see that we have been harvesting at these levels for the last 20 years with no apparent impact on the population. Figure I. National harvest & estimated national population of kangaroos 1981 - 1997 (Pople, Grigg 1999)

The total population fluctuates between 20-35 million, this makes kangaroos amongst the most common large wild land mammals on earth. This in spite of 30 years of intensive harvest. The kangaroo harvest has been subject to enormous scrutiny and monitoring for at least 25 years and no professional commentators have identified any significant deleterious effects, I believe it has passed the precautionary principal. Indeed I believe it can be shown to match almost perfectly with

33

the IUCN’s 6 rules of thumb for sustainable wildlife utilisation, possibly making it an international model. The 6 rules are Know your animal Over harvesting should be difficult The harvest should be conservative Must be effective monitoring and enforcement Mistakes should cause little damage Locals should benefit So how does the kangaroo harvest stacks up against these? Rule 1, know you animal: A great deal is known about kangaroo's. It's unique position in the hearts and minds of Australians has ensured it has received considerable research attention. Their capacity to recover rapidly from drought is well documented, for example after the 1982-84 drought in NSW populations of eastern grey kangaroos which had declined by 72% increase by 233% over 2 years (Fletcher et al 1990). Work in Qld has shown that in areas of intensive long term harvest the juvenile survival rates for the population as a whole actually increases with increasing harvest effort. The population increases is recruitment rate to compensate for the harvest (Pople 1996). Even more remarkable are results with Tas Bennetts wallaby showing that under intensive harvest pressure females actually reach puberty earlier than they otherwise would (Driessen and Hocking 1992). Remarkable stuff! Kangaroos may be the perfect animal for a harvest industry because they are actually adapted to being harvested and responding to dramatic population crashes caused by droughts.

Rule 2, over harvesting should be difficult: The CSIRO in their submission to the Senate inquiry into wildlife utilisation a few years ago stated that "in the absence of a quota system it would probably be uneconomic to reduce kangaroo numbers to below 10/sq km , where as it is known kangaroos can recover after drought from densities as low as 2/sq km" (CSIRO 1997) The simple reason is that kangaroos aren’t whales and they are not Bengal tigers, a kangaroo carcass is worth to the harvester about $10-15 each so for a kangaroo harvester to make money he has to take at least 30 animals/night, any less and he losses money. Once numbers get below about 10/sq sq km a harvester simply can't take enough to pay the bills.

Rule no 3, harvest conservatively: All State kangaroo management plans set harvest quotas of no more than 10-15% of the total population. This has been demonstrated in population modeling exercises to be the maximum sustainable yield (Pople and Grigg 1999, Hacker et al 2000). Nationally the resultant quotas have rarely been met and we therefore can’t comment on actual ethicacy of this as a maximum sustainable yield, other than to reiterate the observation of many commentators that the long term harvest appears to have had no impact on populations (Choquenot et al 1998). However at the State level the red kangaroo quota in Queensland has been fully harvested for at least 15 years, with no apparent impact on populations (Pople 1996). Rule no 4, must have effective monitoring and enforcement: Each State monitors the kangaroo population each year by arial surveys, over 25 years of such monitoring has allowed the development of reliable and repeatable systems. Each State also has rigorous systems to control the take. All kangaroo harvesters must be accredited and licensed. They must purchased sequentially numbered, plastic, lockable tags to affix to all kangaroos taken and must submit monthly reports giving the sex, species, source, weight and tag number of every kangaroo taken. Processors also have a rigorous licensing system and must only purchase kangaroos from licensed harvesters. The extent of monitoring can be demonstrated by data collected by one kangaroo processor showing that throughout a 10 year period he was visited by a Government agent on average once every nine days! Rule no 5, mistakes should cause little damage: Kangaroo populations are vast and highly

34

mobile. Even if locally mistakes lead to reduction of population below sustainable levels, migration from outside populations will certainly quickly rebuild numbers. Indeed recent work has demonstrated the very nature of kangaroo harvesting ensures this. Monitoring of harvester behavior has demonstrated that any areas of rough terrain or denser than normal vegetation are largely ignored in preference to more easily accessible areas. These become inbuilt refugia for populations to replenish harvested areas with both numbers and genetic material. The trials are suggesting that most properties have numerous and extensive such refugia (McLeod et al 1998). Rule no 6, locals should benefit. The vast bulk of the 4000 jobs generated by the industry are located in remote or regional Australia. In many small towns the kangaroo industry is the major employer. The kangaroo industry appears to be something of an international model for sustainable wildlife utilisation, given it is probably the world largest land based consumptive wildlife industry this is somewhat gratifying. If it continues current expansion levels it is estimated the national quotas will be fully taken on a regular basis within 10 years. Further product value adding after this will lead to the situation within 20 years where kangaroo harvesting may well replace wool production as the preferred enterprise across large parts of the arid Australian rangelands, thus realising the IUCN’s call for an indigenisation of agricultural production in that part of the ‘New World’. References Choquenot D, Caughley J, McLeod S (1998) Scientific, economic and social issues of commercial use of wild animals in Australia. Bureau of Resource Sciences. CSIRO (1997) Submission to Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation. Driessen M, Hocking G, (1992). Review and analysis of spotlight surveys in Tasmania: 1975-1990. Dept Parks, Wildlife and Heritage Tasmania. Fletcher M, Southwell C, Sheppard N, Caughley G, Grice D, Grigg G, Beard L. (1990) Kangaroo Population Trends in the Australia Rangelands, 1980-87. Search Vol 21 no 1. Hacker R, McLeod S, Druhan J (2000) An exploratory analysis of the effects of kangaroo harvesting on pastoral productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin. Queensland Conservation Groups Annual Conference 2000. IUCN (1980) World Conservation Strategy. KIAA (1997). Submission to Senate Inquiry into Wildlife Utilisation. McLeod S, Druhan J, Jones G (1999) Kangaroo Harvester Behaviour http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/ap/vpru/issue2.pdf Pople T (1996) ) Effects of Harvesting upon the Demography of Red Kangaroos in Western Queensland. University of Queensland Thesis. Pople T, Grigg G, (1999) Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia. Environment Australia. Sluiter I, Allen G, Morgan D, Walker I (1997) Vegetation responses to stratified kangaroo grazing pressure at Hattah-Kulkyne National Park 1992-96. Flora and Fauna Technical Report no 149, Dept Natural Resources and Environment Victoria.