WILD-HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS

Wild-harvest of kangaroos is permitted in some, but not all Australian States. It is not permitted in Victoria.

The three species most commonly harvested for commercial use are the red, eastern and western grey kangaroos. These will be referred to collectively as the `large kangaroos'. In all three species the males are much larger than the females.

Large kangaroos are abundant in the semi-arid and more remote parts of all the mainland States.¹⁹⁰ Their densities are relatively low in the more densely settled farmland and forested areas of Victoria.

History of Kangaroo Harvesting in Australia

Aborigines have hunted kangaroos in Australia for at least 6,000 years.¹⁹¹

The advent of European agricultural systems has led to increases in the populations of larger kangaroos in parts of Australia, particularly the semi-arid zone. Elsewhere more intensive settlement has reduced populations. Thus there has been an increase in their density in some regions and some shift in their range.¹⁹²

As agriculture advanced, kangaroos soon became regarded as a pest.¹⁹³ Development of a kangaroo industry began in the mid-1800s when the outstanding quality of kangaroo skins and leather began to be appreciated.¹⁹⁴ This occurred without conservation-related controls or records of numbers taken.

In excess of 450,000 skins were harvested annually from Australia in the 1950s.¹⁹⁵ In the 1950s developments in refrigeration allowed a substantial domestic and export market in kangaroo meat to develop. This was based on quotas. Quality of the product was poor or unreliable and most was used for pet food, though a small specialist market for human food was also supplied.¹⁹⁶

Export of skin and meat production peaked in the late 1960s and 1970s, then declined until recently. Poor meat quality and hygiene, and parasite infestation contributed to the loss of export markets.

Conservation concern in this period led, in 1971, to a Federal government report, Conservation and Exploitation of Kangaroos. This concluded that there was no threat of extinction of the large kangaroos and no need for a ban on exploitation. Its recommendations included that:

ll) control of harvesting should rest with governments;

mm) a system of managing kangaroo harvesting which is common to all States should be developed;

nn) management of harvest should include setting limits to harvest, spelling areas from harvesting as necessary, tagging meat and hides to control harvesting, issuing of licences and paying royalties: and

oo) marketing of meat to indicate that it contains kangaroo. ¹⁹⁷

Continued protest in the 1960s and early 1980s (especially in the USA) led the Minister for Customs to withdraw permission for export of kangaroo products, although culling was accepted. Import of kangaroo products to the USA was banned in 1972 in response to claims that the large kangaroos were endangered.¹⁹⁸ Such claims have occurred, and still occur, in the face of the fact that appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, which list species that are endangered or threatened, did not (and do not) list any of the commercially used species of kangaroo.¹⁹⁹ After staff from the US Fisheries and Wildlife Service investigated the situation the US import ban was lifted.²⁰⁰

Harvest quotas for Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania were set after consultation between State and Federal conservation authorities.²⁰¹ Resurgence in the domestic and overseas meat markets is presently occurring. A small domestic market for kangaroo meat for human consumption opened in South Australia in 1980.²⁰² Kangaroo has been well received as game meat in Europe, Japan, USA and Hong Kong.

Current Interstate Programs

Legislation controlling the kangaroo industry in those States that now allow harvesting conforms broadly with recommendations of the Federal Government's report, Conservation and Exploitation of Kangaroos (1971). It varies somewhat but is all based on:

Basic perception of the large, harvested kangaroo species as highly successful and abundant animals that present a pest problem to rural enterprises. All acts have as common objectives the maintenance of viable populations of kangaroos throughout their natural ranges and control of the industry with no heavier hand than is needed to ensure cooperation between industry and government in their mutual interest ... in the welfare of harvested species. ²⁰³

Thus the primary aim of regulations in these States is to perpetuate self-sustaining populations of each species throughout their preferred range. Regulations are not aimed at providing sustained yields for commercial benefit. Commercial use is seen essentially as a tool to manage kangaroo populations for the benefit of other forms of agriculture.²⁰⁴

Environment Australia is responsible, under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act, for approving State proposals for commercial utilisation of kangaroos.²⁰⁵ Each participating State must prepare and submit a management plan detailing the species involved and proposals for the level of harvest, population monitoring, harvest methods, monitoring of shooters and dealers, checks to prevent illegal harvesting and other conservation procedures. State authorities are responsible for the application of the plan.

Details of regulations vary between the harvesting States. They have general similarities in that annual surveys of kangaroo populations are used as the basis for allocation of quotas for each property on which harvesting takes place.²⁰⁶ Quotas allow only a conservative harvest to ensure maintenance of populations. Research has established that a harvest of 12 to 15 per cent of the population is sustainable and the figure of 15 per cent is used as the base quota.²⁰⁷ Additional allocations may be made where population surveys indicate that these can be sustained.²⁰⁸

Quotas are administered through allocation of tags that must be attached to the carcass immediately after a kangaroo is shot. These tags are provided to licensed hunters either directly or through property owners or processors, after the payment of a fee or royalty. The tags are used to identify a kangaroo from the time it is killed to the end of processing. Equipment, method of kill and treatment of the carcass are specified to the licensed hunter. Licensed shooters are required to demonstrate sufficient skill to ensure that they hit the head, neck or upper body; that is achieve instant death of the kangaroo.²⁰⁹

Data are collected on the location of kangaroos harvested, how they are shot, their sex and age.²¹⁰ These data are used to monitor impact of harvest and other factors, such as weather, on populations. Permits are also required for intrastate and interstate movement of kangaroos. Penalties are imposed for non-compliance with regulations.²¹¹

The Committee was given to understand that, in spite of increasing demand for kangaroo products, the take in South Australia at least, is usually below the permitted quota of 15 per cent of the population. This may be due to the effort involved in night shooting, low returns to shooters or shortage of licensed shooters.²¹²

In Queensland 20 per cent of the estimated population has been harvested in some years without any evidence of a decline in the populations.²¹³ This, according to staff of Environment Australia, may be due to the predominance of males in the harvest.²¹⁴

Monitoring allows review of quota allocation. Such review, combined with the allocation of shooting permits to specific properties, should ensure a sustainable harvest that is appropriately distributed in time and space.²¹⁵

Products of the Kangaroo Industry

Kangaroo products include skins, leather, game meat and pet food.²¹⁶ Kangaroos culled in Victoria cannot currently be used to produce such products.²¹⁷

Meat for human consumption commands a considerably higher price than meat for pet food but also must meet more stringent health requirements. The Committee was informed that in South Australia all carcasses must meet standards for human consumption. This has led to the majority of kangaroo meat harvested in South Australia being used for human consumption. A large proportion of carcasses from other States is still used for pet food.²¹⁸

Kangaroos suffer from few diseases normally present in domestic animals and present little danger to human health. Two of the parasitic worms they carry are of aesthetic importance, and so affect sales for human consumption, but not health.²¹⁹ Kangaroo meat has good health credentials as it is very low in fat.²²⁰ Furthermore, most kangaroo muscle is concentrated in the lower, higher-value part of the animal and the quality of meat does not appear to deteriorate as the animal ages.²²¹

Currently, however, there is an over-supply of carcasses for the available market.²²²

Leather is an important product. Kangaroo leather is more expensive than cow hide but is stronger and more attractive than cow-hide leather. Japan is the biggest market for kangaroo leather. Europe (particularly Italy) also takes substantial quantities, particularly for manufacture of fine-leather goods such as shoes and handbags.²²³

The Senate Inquiry was informed by the Kangaroo Industry that the period from 1985 to 1995 saw a steady (5 per cent) growth in value of kangaroo products nationally.²²⁴ It estimated that the value of the industry in 1995 was $240 million - derived from an annual commercial harvest of large kangaroos in Australia of approximately 3.7 million animals. This value includes a component for alternative costs of kangaroo control programs. (These figures can be compared with the approximately 47 million cattle and sheep slaughtered in Australia each year, ²²⁵ whose annual value was in excess of $5,000 million in 1997-98).

The value of the individual kangaroo products is, respectively, approximately $50 million `farm gate', $40 to $50 million as pet food and $120 million for leather.²²⁶

The industry has recognised the dangers of excessive competition and the need for cooperation to reduce duplication, avoidable costs and inadequate attention to marketing problems.²²⁷

The Victorian Situation

A kangaroo-meat industry existed in Victoria prior to the development of National Game Meat Standards. As a result, the Victorian industry operated under different regulations from other States. Introduction of the national standards may have presented an excessive burden on the Victorian industry, which was largely aimed at the pet-food trade.²²⁸ The industry declined in the 1970s.

Commercial use of culled kangaroos was undertaken in Victoria in the 1980s to test the viability of a kangaroo industry in this State.²²⁹ It did not prove to be viable. The Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) concludes that:

The industry failed at that time because of the low numbers of kangaroos available, and the distances to be travelled between properties and points of processing, which made it uneconomic for the industry to continue. Commercial utilisation of kangaroos has not been permitted in Victoria since that time.²³⁰

A professional hunter claimed that the kangaroo trial was "set up so that it was not really going to work" and inferences drawn from it are questionable.²³¹ He considers that the results from it cannot be related to the likely outcome where locally experienced shooters cull kangaroos and carcasses are transported in suitably equipped and refrigerated vehicles. The result would be meat suitable for human consumption rather than "flyblown and putrid animals".

Eastern grey kangaroos occur throughout the more extensively farmed parts of Victoria, while western greys are present in the west of the State.²³² Both species are gregarious; the eastern grey kangaroos forming larger mobs.²³³ Relatively small populations of red kangaroos are found in the north-west of the State.²³⁴ Though probably experiencing periodic fluctuations, the population consists of approximately 6,000 individuals.²³⁵

Compared with their densities in the rangelands of other States, these kangaroos are sparse in Victoria.²³⁶ Densities averaging more than 20 kangaroos per square kilometre are common over much of the New South Wales and Queensland rangelands, while less than one per square kilometre is normal for Victoria.²³⁷ The population of large kangaroos in Victoria was estimated in 1981 to be approximately 300,000. The estimate for the whole of Australia is over 19 million.²³⁸ Of course locally, and for short periods, mobs may gather, producing much higher densities.

Harvest is not considered necessary for population control over most of the State. Sixty per cent of land is privately owned, mainly as smallholdings, and largely clear of shrubs which are needed by kangaroos for shelter. Nonetheless, localised damage to pastures and crops may be significant and culling is permitted for damage mitigation under the Wildlife Act 1975. In 1997 the legal culling of about 30,000 kangaroos was permitted on private properties in Victoria, with smaller numbers culled as part of official conservation area management programs. Usually up to 50 kangaroos per property may be culled under permit on the permit-holder's land (a number of agents may help) only in a three-month period. The number of kangaroos in the period may be increased or reduced. Carcasses cannot be removed from the farm but, subject to a permit, skins can be tanned for personal use.²³⁹ Under such kangaroo-destruction permits for damage control in Victoria, the number of kangaroos permitted to be destroyed has varied between 8,000 and 38,000 since 1982, depending on seasonal conditions. Staff of the DNRE assume that more are taken illegally. ²⁴⁰

A summary of cull permits issued in 1998 is given in Table 4.2 below.²⁴¹ This indicates the maximum legal cull on privately owned or leased land.

Table 4.2 Kangaroo control permits issued in 1998 by region*
Region	Number of permits				Number of kangaroos permitted to be culled on private land*
	Eastern grey	Red	Western grey	Total	Eastern grey	Red	Western grey	Total
Gippsland	294	0	0	294	7,965	0	0	7,965
North-east	402	0	0	402	8,181	0	0	8,181
North-west	254	21	65	340	5,393	330	2,039	7,762
Port Phillip	108	0	0	108	2,882	0	0	2,882
South-west	315	0	77	392	8,718	0	1,297	10,015
Total	1,373	21	142	1,538	33,139	330	3,336	36,805

* Actual numbers killed are not known. In some cases when a permit is issued few if any animals are killed.

Source: Data provided by the Flora and Fauna Utilisation Program, DNRE.

Culling permits and total numbers permitted to be culled were fairly evenly spread over the State, with the exception of the most densely populated region of Port Phillip. The numbers permitted to be culled were also reasonably uniformly distributed throughout the year, although there was a trend to a late autumn/winter maximum in most districts. The actual number of kangaroos that were permitted to be culled under a single permit varied considerably, from over 40 to less than ten.

The number of permits given and kangaroos permitted to be culled has varied considerably with year, largely in line with seasonal conditions. Destruction permits were for 33,000 kangaroos in 1982 (a very dry year) and 8,000 to 10,000 per year from 1984 to 1989 (wetter years). Permitted cull climbed to a peak in 1998 of 36,805.²⁴²

At the public hearings, a professional shooter pointed out that the cull in Victoria is not based directly on kangaroo numbers but on observed damage to vegetation. Kangaroo numbers are not assessed and the cull program is not a "management program per se" as it is in those States that allow commercial use of culled animals.²⁴³

Staff of the DNRE confirmed that there is no regular assessment of actual kangaroo numbers.²⁴⁴ Consequently there are no reliable figures upon which an estimate of a potential harvest or impact of cull can be calculated. The numbers of kangaroos authorised to be destroyed for damage mitigation indicate that variation in available carcasses could vary from year to year, between 8,000 and 37,000.²⁴⁵

Should Victoria decide to commence commercial harvesting, survey and monitoring of kangaroo populations would be required under a State management plan. According to Environment Australia, monitoring would not be needed of the whole State, but only of those regions where harvesting was taking place.²⁴⁶

By way of comparison, some 3.7 million kangaroos are culled annually and used commercially in NSW, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.²⁴⁷ The kangaroo harvest quota in South Australia in 1997 was 938,000 animals.²⁴⁸

A recent internal review of the commercial aspects of the industry in relation to Victoria was undertaken by the DNRE. This concluded that:

pp) There would be significant costs to developers (estimated at up to $400,000) associated with developing new kangaroo harvesting, transport and processing infrastructure in Victoria. No reasonable investor is likely to commit these funds without some certainty of adequate kangaroo numbers for harvest.

qq) However, where the infrastructure is already partly or largely in place (and particularly where this infrastructure is presently being utilised commercially in other ways, for example wild-rabbit harvesting and processing for human consumption) and kangaroo harvesting and processing can be introduced without substantial cost (including unknown meat hygiene costs), then there may be a reasonable basis for commercial viability, even if limited to reasonably low harvest numbers.²⁴⁹

Opinions on the Desirability of Changing the Status Quo in Victoria

Strong differences in opinions have been voiced since the 1960s concerning the kangaroo industry. These express support of positions ranging from total protection to total eradication of kangaroos.²⁵⁰ There has also been considerable confusion between conservation and humanitarian arguments, as well as concerns that can be described as aesthetic. The last include attachment to a national emblem and repugnance at shooting as the means of killing an animal. These aesthetic considerations do not affect the well-being of the animal or its conservation, but have a considerable impact on public feeling.

The Committee found that there are still widely differing opinions concerning the desirability of commercial kangaroo harvesting. These were expressed in the submissions received by the Committee.²⁵¹

According to Lavery, in his book The Kangaroo Keepers, conservation concerns are focused on:

the maintenance of viable populations of all native species, including kangaroos, in the presence of [humans] and [their] activities.²⁵²

The Council of Nature Conservation Ministers has defined conservation objectives for kangaroos as being:

To maintain populations of the designated species of Macropodea over their natural range, and to contain the deleterious effects of kangaroos on other land management priorities.²⁵³

According to Lavery, from a purely conservation point of view, the death and sustainable use of successful species for reasonable purposes is not exceptionable.²⁵⁴ Nonetheless, if large kangaroos are to be killed, this should be done with as little pain to the animals as possible.

A majority of those submissions that advocated the consumptive use of large kangaroos supported the approach used in other States where kangaroos culled for pest control are processed for meat and skin products.²⁵⁵

Several submissions pointed out the difficulties faced by rural producers in localities where numbers of kangaroo or other native animals have increased substantially due to changes in pasture, crops and water availability, and the removal of predators.⁰ Problems listed include damage to fences and crops as well as increased grazing pressure on both pastures and remnant native vegetation.

Good farm management can be compromised where there is a large population of a grazing animal that cannot be controlled. One farmer explained:

As pastures are improved and watering facilities for stock developed it attracts more and more 'roos. Paddocks shut up for improved rotational grazing or saved for lambing ewes are eaten out and efficient management is made difficult.¹

The same farmer described inadequacies in the present Victorian damage control program.

Though it is possible to obtain a permit to shoot, the permit numbers are few, time involved and expense is more than most can afford. Any small reduction in numbers seems to be very quickly restored and though the shooting permit is a small deterrent it is of little practical help.²

In addition, several submissions expressed concern with the present damage-control system on the grounds that:

rr) the cull is undertaken by non-professional shooters and so likely to be inhumane;

ss) the system is ill-supervised and open to abuse;

tt) lack of commercial valuing of kangaroos provides no incentive to conserve kangaroo populations or reduce the populations of hard-hoofed domestic stock;

uu) the cull provides no information on the size of, and changes in, kangaroo populations; and

vv) current controls lead to waste of the resource represented by the kangaroo carcasses.³

A professional shooter, in his evidence to the Committee, summed up much of the opinion in favour of commercial use of kangaroos in Victoria:

We have no kangaroo management program per se. The destruction permit system allows for the destruction of some kangaroos to address the problem [caused by excessive populations]. After the problem has been addressed, no-one really knows what is left. It is time we went along with, and joined the rest of Australia and had a responsible kangaroo management plan for the utilisation of the animals. Environment Australia ... should be involved [so that] economic and ecological sustainability can be brought to the fore for Victoria's kangaroos.⁴

Several other submissions decried the `waste' of kangaroos killed during cull programs in Victoria.⁵ They emphasised that the method of kill must be humane and properly controlled to ensure sustainability of the kangaroo populations. Several suggest that such an industry would improve the welfare of the kangaroos and the information on their conservation status.

Use of kangaroos instead of, or to partly replace, hard-hoofed stock is seen as desirable from the point of view of land protection. Much of the damage done by exotic stock is the result of trampling and the way in which sheep and cattle tear herbage from the ground. Kangaroos have been advocated as a less damaging type of stock.⁶ This possibility, and the difficulties associated with it, are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 in relation to `Integrated Grazing'.

The Natural Australian Meat Company submitted that kangaroos culled in Victoria should be supporting a processing industry in this State.⁷ Others, in calling for the rejection of the commercial harvest of kangaroos, asserted that the numbers culled in Victoria are inadequate to provide this support and that commercial use of kangaroos would produce pressure to take unsustainable numbers.⁸

There is strong evidence that killing would be done most humanely by professional hunters.⁹ This evidence was questioned by several submissions to the Inquiry.¹⁰ One concern was with the fate of young-at-foot, that is young not in the pouch. While it is required that pouch young be killed by the shooter, young-at-foot are not likely to by killed quickly but, without their mother's protection, die in the wild.

The submissions expressing opposition to the commercial use of kangaroos presented one, or generally several, of the reasons summarised above.¹¹ Field-harvesting was rejected as unhygienic, cruel and beyond any possibility of adequate supervision. It was condemned as promoting a negative attitude to native wildlife and a distasteful use of a national emblem.¹²

The concept of super-abundance was rejected; it was seen as a reflection of both current inappropriate land management and a bias in favour of exotic species.¹³ The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) questions kangaroo harvesting as a means of protecting soils and vegetation from damage caused by conventional grazing systems. The ACF considers that harvesting of kangaroos would do nothing to improve land protection, as farmers would still have strong incentives to continue current forms of production as well as take kangaroos.¹⁴ Impacts on biodiversity could result from selective harvesting of larger animals, causing excessive intrusion into the normal evolutionary processes.¹⁵

Potential Strengths of a Kangaroo-products Industry

The three large species of kangaroo occur in substantial numbers in the less intensively farmed parts of Australia. Their numbers have increased in response to Western agricultural practices and removal of predators in some regions, particularly in the semi-arid zones. Interstate experience indicated that an annual harvest of 15 per cent of the populations is sustainable.

Kangaroo meat, if correctly handled, is a high-quality, low-fat product that is increasingly being accepted in Australia and overseas as a game meat. Kangaroo skins produce a high-quality leather for which there is a good market.

Systems based on substantial research and continual monitoring have been developed in several States to regulate the sustainable harvest and hygienic transport of kangaroos. These systems have been incorporated into management plans developed by four States in line with Environment Australia's requirements for export permits. They ensure orderly and sustainable management of the harvest, transport and processing of kangaroos. The Committee understands that, at least, the South Australian program is partially self-funding.

In Victoria, kangaroos are currently culled for damage control. Each year approximately 9,000 to 30,000 animals are authorised to be destroyed and left on site. There is potential for these to be used for kangaroo products. If such kangaroos were used commercially, they could provide additional income for rural districts, moreover, there appears to be support in rural communities for such commercial use of culled kangaroos. In addition, processing facilities for kangaroo products are already established in Victoria.

Challenges for a Potential Kangaroo-products Industry

While there are no comprehensive surveys of the demography of Victorian large kangaroos, it is known that the total numbers and density of populations in Victoria are low compared with those in other mainland States.

As elsewhere, the reconciling of the conflict between the prerogative of culling for population control and maintenance of viable populations, and the need of the processing industry for regular and reliable supply of carcasses, will be very difficult. Kangaroo populations, as well as available feed, vary from year to year. As a result the number of kangaroos available through either a population-control or a damage-mitigation program varies greatly as well.

Acceptability of kangaroo meat by the community is limited - the Australian market presently has a greater supply than demand, as more skins than carcasses are processed.¹⁶

Costs to a developer to establish infrastructure for a new industry in Victoria (as opposed to expanding on an existing animal-processing industry) is estimated to be around half a million dollars. Returns from the industry will also be mainly made in the urban areas, where the processing plants are located, rather than in rural districts.¹⁷

In Victoria and in many of the localities to which products might be exported there is considerable resistance to the idea of commercial harvesting of kangaroos for any reason. With Victoria's comparatively small kangaroo population, minor inaccuracies in estimating sustainable harvest levels may have long-term adverse impacts on local populations.

Any export of product would require a management program to be created that would meet the requirements of Commonwealth legislation (see also Chapter 9).