Campaigning
From EnvironmentWiki
--Nichole Hoskin 16:22, 28 June 2008 (EST)
*any reference to 'kangaroos' in this section is a reference to the commercially harvested species, including Red Kangaroos, Western Grey Kangaroos and Eastern Grey Kangaroos, and Common Wallaroos, unless otherwise specified*
Divisions Amongst Animal Welfare Lobby Groups
The cull of Eastern grey kangaroos on the Department of Defence site in Belconnen has revealed divisions between animal welfare lobby groups. In this case, groups such as Viva (UK based Vegetarian International Voice for Animals), Australia’s Wildcare Organisation and the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia (WPAA) oppose the cull. Viva was responsible for protests that led to UK supermarket chains Tesco and Sainbury’s no longer stocking Australian kangaroo products.
In contrast, RSPCA Australia and some veterinarians have been involved in providing expert advice to the ACT Government and monitoring the condition of the kangaroos on the site and the cull. RSPCA Australia has also provided public support for the cull through senior representatives of RSPCA Australia making statements to the media. (See, Cull of kangaroos in Belconnen)
The difference of opinion between animal welfare lobby groups is also apparent on the issue of commercial shooting of kangaroos. On this issue, Viva, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the WPAA are opposed to the commercial harvesting of Red kangaroos, Eastern grey kangaroos, Western grey kangaroos and Common Wallaroos. (See, The Position of ACF and Viva) In contrast, RSPCA Australia acknowledges that it may be necessary to reduce some species of wild native animals because of imbalances in populations. However, RSPCA Australia requires the killing of wild native animals to be humane, regulated and under a Government supervised management programme. (See, Position of RSPCA Australia) The strongest indication of RSPCA Australia's position in relation to current Australian Government policies for commercial shooting is the recommendation, in its survey of compliance with the Code of Practice in 2002, that State Government’s phase out non-commercial shooting of kangaroos because of the higher incidence of cruelty to kangaroos in non-commercial shooting than in commercial shooting. (See, Animal Welfare, Compliance with the Code of Practice)
While RSPCA Australia takes the position that the current regulatory framework for commercial shooting of kangaroos reduces the incidences of cruelty to animals, RSPCA Australia does not blindly endorse all aspects of the regulatory framework. On the issue of whether the Code of Practice specifies a humane method of killing pouch young and young at foot, RSPCA Australia recommends further research to gain a better understanding of how to achieve the humane killing of dependent young. (See, Animal Welfare Areas of Concern, Killing Pouch Young and Young at Foot) RSPCA Australia also recommends changes to Schedule 2 of the Code of Practice to improve compliance rates of commercial shooters by depicting the exact position of the brain of kangaroos.[1] RSPCA Australia argues that this change would remove ambiguity on where shooters need to shoot kangaroos to achieve a sudden and painless death through penetration of the brain.[2]
Another difference between the position of RSPCA Australia and ACF and Viva is that only RSPCA Australia makes reasonable recommendations on how Australian Governments can improve regulation of commercial harvesting of kangaroos to reduce the incidence of inhumane killing of kangaroos. In contrast, ACF and Viva argue against commercial shooting without suggesting alternative measures to resolve the problem of overpopulation by abundant kangaroo species.
The Position of RSPCA Australia
The Australian Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA Australia) is responsible, under Australian laws, for the enforcement and prosecution of cruelty to animals because of the expertise of RSPCA Australia on issues of animal welfare.[3] RSPCA Australia's position, on commercial harvesting, is that: “RSPCA Australia recognises that, due to a range of factors, in many areas there is an imbalance in wild populations of some species of native animals. RSPCA Australia acknowledges that in some circumstances it is necessary to reduce wild populations of some native animals…RSPCA Australia opposes commercial removal and use of native animals, unless such use is carried out in a humane manner and only as part of a fully regulated and government supervised management program.”[4]
For further information RSPCA Wildlife Policy
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF)
--Nichole Hoskin 11:07, 17 April 2008 (EST)
The position of Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is that “kangaroo management must be primarily directed towards maintaining populations over their natural range.”[5] Considering that the aims of Kangaroo Management Programmes (KMPs) include maintaining viable populations of kangaroos and minimise unwanted impacts on kangaroos, it is arguable that Australian Governments also share this policy objective.(See, Commercial Harvest and Regulation of Commercial Harvesting) However, it is unclear whether this position requires ceasing commercial harvesting of kangaroos to maintain a ‘natural status quo’, given that before European settlement, Aboriginal people managed kangaroo populations through hunting and the use of fire to manage the Australian landscape. (See, Indigenous Harvests) Considering that humans have always managed kangaroo populations in Australia, we need to question the consequences of a policy of eliminating kangaroo management for human purposes.
In relation to commerical shooting, ACF opposes the three largest species “being killed primarily for their commercial value and the establishment and maintenance of a kangaroo industry.”[6] ACF proposes that any culling of kangaroos “must be carried out under permit using humane and essentially non-commercial methods.”[7] While ACF recommends that all culls should be non-commercial, RSPCA Australia’s '2002 Report on Compliance with the Code of Practice' directly contradicts this position with recommended the phasing out of non-commercial shooting because of higher incidence of cruelty to kangaroos than in the heavy regulated commercial harvesting industry. (See Animal Welfare Areas of Concern and Regulation of Commercial Harvesting)
On the issue of whether the commercial harvesting of kangaroos should occur, ACF notes that the size of kangaroo populations has “dominated debate on the kangaroo issue.”[8] ACF then provides differing estimates of kangaroo population size from 1980 to 1983, with the “Australian authorities” estimates being significantly higher than scientist’s estimates based on “comprehensive estimates”.[9] It is unclear what evidence supports this proposition and the identity of the 'Australian authorities' purported to be responsible for the higher estimates is also unclear. The use of figures from between 1980 and 1983 is problematic since this data is out-of-date and was collected during the worst drought on record in Australia at the time. Since it is known that the 1982-1983 drought caused declines in the populations of Red kangaroos, Eastern grey kangaroos and Western grey kangaroos, it is arguable that the use of these figures do not represent the size of kangaroo populations except during severe drought. (See Population Numbers, USFWS views)
In addition to claims that Government estimates are higher than scientists’ estimates, ACF also claims, “The 1982/83 drought was the most severe on record in eastern Australia and caused an overall mortality of 43% in inland New South Wales kangaroo populations. Applying the known mortality rates to relevant areas of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia reveals that the post-drought kangaroo population would not exceed 13 million.”[10] However, it is unclear what evidence supports ACF’s mortality rate in ‘inland New South Wales’ and ACF fails to provide supporting evidence that this mortality rate is applicable to Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.
On the extent of commercial killing of kangaroos in Australia, ACF cites the commercial harvest quotas from 1981 and 1983 as exceeding “3 million and at least 1.5 to 2.5 million kangaroos have been processed commercially each year.”[11] However, since these figures were taken during a period of drought, which causes declines in kangaroo populations, it is unclear whether these figures are representative of current trends (Population Numbers, USFWS views) It is also unclear whether ACFs figures are representative of the general trend considering that the quota for 1982 was exceptional because they included quotas for 500 Swamp Wallabies and 700 Bennetts Wallabies in Victoria. (Historical National Quotas) The inclusion of these additional harvest quotas only in 1982 has the effect of increasing the quota totals and arguably, the numbers of kangaroos killed under the quota.
In addition to ACF’s claims about the size of commercial harvesting in Australia and opposition to this, ACF also argues that,
“The 1975 to 1983 State and National kangaroo kill quotas were arbitrary figures which bore no direct relationship to actual population size, environmental conditions, legal killing rates or the size of the commercial kill. Between 1975 and 1983 quotas grew by 240% from 885,000 to over 3 million yet over the same period total domestic livestock numbers fell by 25%.”[12] While it is possible that ACF is accurately depicting the setting of quotas between 1975 and 1983, considering the views of the USFWS during this time, the later views of the USFWS suggest that this view no longer applies because of changes in laws on kangaroo management practices.(See, Population Numbers, USFWS views and Regulation of Commercial Harvesting)
In relation to Australian Government legislation for commercial harvesting of kangaroos, ACF claims,
“There is no specific Commonwealth, State or Territory Act to control or administer the kangaroo industry. In addition to various legislated State and Territory fauna protection Acts contain no specific clauses enables the establishment or maintenance of a kangaroo industry. No Australian Parliament has debated the establishment of the kangaroo industry nor passed any legislation specifically intended to establish such an industry, therefore it has been set up without genuine public discussion.”[13] While the legislation ACF specified may not regulate kangaroo management programmes (KMPs) in Australia, the Federal Government enacted the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) enabling the Federal Minister to supervise and approve State agency KMPs. Thus, the Federal Parliament has passed legislation with provisions specifically regulating KMPs and commercial harvesting. The Federal Government has also enacted the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 to enable the export of kangaroo products on the condition that there is conclusive evidence that the trade will not adversely effect kangaroo populations. (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting) In addition to Federal legislation, State Governments have also legislated to provide a lawful basis for its policy of enabling and regulating the commercial harvest of kangaroos. (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting) Given that Australian Governments have legislated to ‘establish the kangaroo industry’, Australian Parliaments have had the opportunity to debate this issue and there has been ‘genuine public discussion’ of the issue, contrary to the claims of ACF.
VIVA (Vegetarian International Voice for Animals): 'Save the Kangaroo'
--Nichole Hoskin 11:07, 17 April 2008 (EST)
Viva (Vegetarian International Voice for Animals), a UK lobby group, has campaigned against the sale of kangaroo meat by UK supermarket chains Tesco, Sainbury’s and Somerfield through holding ‘Day of Action’ outside stores to highlight their claims of suffering caused by killing kangaroos. In arguing against the commercial shooting of kangaroos in Australia, Juliet Gellatley, the founder of Viva, argues that commercial shooting is cruel to kangaroos, regulation of commercial shooting is ineffective, and commercial shooting is threatening kangaroos.
To read more, click on the title (above)
The Culling of Kangaroos on the Department of Defence site in Belconnen, ACT
--Nichole Hoskin 11:07, 17 April 2008 (EST)
In response to an application by the Department of Defence for the relocation of the Eastern grey kangaroos to New South Wales, the ACT Government commissioned a review conducted by Dr Maxine Cooper (the ACT Commissioner for the Environment), prominent veterinarian Professor David Morgan, RSPCA CEO Michael Linke and CSIRO grassland expert Sue McIntyre.[14] After considering the export report, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope released the report, which recommended the urgent culling of kangaroos by lethal injection.[15]
The site in question is fenced and surrounded by suburbia, with the effect that the kangaroos are enclosed. The close proximity to residential areas means that it is not possible to use high-powered rifles, usually required to achieve a sudden and painless death by a head shot. Instead of shooting the kangaroos, the plan is to herd them into pens and use tranquiliser darts to enable the administering of lethal injections.
Maxine Cooper’s report recommended the urgent culling of kangaroos to stop damage to the grassland ecosystem on the site because of overpopulation by the kangaroos. According to Mr Stanhope, there are more than 600 kangaroos on the site, which threatens the future of three endangered species.[16] According the 2006 report, the kangaroo population on the site was damaging endangered native grassland and lizards.[17] These claims are consistent with the views of ACT RSPCA CEO, Michael Linke, that “there are almost 600 kangaroos on this site when there’s probably room for about 100, so of course fighting for that little bit of shade is difficult.”[18] The Department of Defence has been working with RSPCA Inspectors to make sure the kangaroos have enough shade and water. According to Michael Linke, “On our observations, the kangaroos have access to shade and water.”[19]
On the issue of why urgent action was required in this case, Mr Stanhope said, “the advice is if we don’t actually proceed to implement that recommendation as early as possible, we will of course have significant numbers of additional kangaroos on the site.”[20]
In addition to experts and the ACT Government, the Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, has refused to intervene in the cull plans. For Mr Garrett, “Australians care a great deal about their environment and about their wildlife. But when there are significant imbalances and the possibilities that you’ll have conditions which don’t benefit the environment and wildlife in the long term, then programmes like this—humanely and properly administered—are sometimes necessary.”[21] According to Defence spokesman Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, the contract between Defence and Cumberland for the cull of the kangaroos “requires” Cumberland “to comply with the national code of practice for the humane destruction of kangaroos. They have qualified and experienced datas, there’s an ecologist and two veterinarians [who] will be available to advise on animal welfare issues and supervise.”[22]
In this case, Australian Governments faced a choice between allowing overpopulation to continue at the cost of damaging endangered grasslands or protecting the endangered grasslands by reducing the numbers of kangaroos on the site. Considering that animal welfare experts, such as the RSPCA and veterinarians, have recommended the use of darts and lethal injections and the contractors must comply with the Code of Practice under the supervision of the RSPCA and veterinarians, it is arguable that the cull is humane.
According to the immediately past-president of Wildcare, Steve Garlick, “relocating kangaroos is not a difficult process…it’s not traumatic at all if it’s done correctly.”[23] Greens Senator Bob Brown is critical of the decision to cull the 400 kangaroos on this site. According to Senator Brown, “Kevin Rudd could begin by saving those kangaroos and making sure they are transported to a safe haven in New South Wales rather than being given a deadly injection and left as a heap on the ground which is going to give Australia further notoriety in its mishandling of wildlife.”[24] While Senator Brown refers to a ‘safe haven in New South Wales’, it is unclear the location of this safe haven. Considering that NSW engages in culling and commercial shooting of kangaroos to reduce grazing pressure, it is unlikely that the New South Wales Government would agree to allow the ACT Government to move an additional 400 kangaroos in from Belconnen.
In contrast to the views of Mr Garlick, conservationist Dr David Shorthouse says, “Euthanizing is the best option. Translocation is not a good option. You get a percentage of kangaroos which get injured in the process. When the kangaroos are released they’re in a strange area, there may not be sufficient food there, they move off to other places and get culled there. The issue is what is the most humane method? RSPCA veterinarian surgeons say the most humane method in this situation is to dart and euthanize.”[25] Considering that experts in animal welfare, such as the RSPCA and veterinarians argue that the cull is the most humane method, it is arguable that Mr Garlick’s comments are ill informed and wrong.
It appears that groups advocating relocation appear to expect Australian Governments to pay for the relocation, which would cost the Australian taxpayer, according to Mr Shorthouse, millions of dollars.[26] If these groups were really concerned about doing something to save these kangaroos, may be they should raise the necessary funds to provide a viable alternative location where the kangaroos can sustainably live.
References
1. RSPCA Australia, Kangaroo Shooting Code Compliance: A survey of the Extent of Compliance with the Requirements of the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, ‘Field Inspections of commercially harvested kangaroos’, p 24.
2. RSPCA Australia, Kangaroo Shooting Code Compliance: A survey of the Extent of Compliance with the Requirements of the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, ‘Field Inspections of commercially harvested kangaroos’, p 24.
3. RSPCA Australia, Our Work: Inspectorate, Our Work: Inspectorate, p 1.
4. RSPCA Australia, Policies- E Wildlife, “1.2: Control and commercial use of native animals”, p 2.
5. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 1.3 p 1.
6. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 1.3 p 1.
7. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 1.3 p 1.
8. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting Policy Statement No. 39, 2.2 Kangaroo Populations p 1.
9. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting Policy Statement No. 39, 2.2 Kangaroo Populations, p 1.
10. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 2.2 Kangaroo Populations p 1.
11. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 2.5 Extent of Commercial Killing p 2.
12. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 2.5 Extent of Commercial Killing p 2.
13. Australian Conservation Foundation, Kangaroo Harvesting: Policy Statement No. 39, 2.7 Legislative Basis for Commercial Killing p 2.
14. Jennifer Browning, ABC News Online, Roos face uncertain future, 4th March 2008, p 1.
15. ABC News Online, Belconnen kangaroo cull to begin ‘within weeks’, 6th March 2008, p 1.
16. ABC News Online, Belconnen kangaroo cull to begin ‘within weeks’, 6th March 2008, p 1.
17. ABC News Online, Roo cull fight goes global, 12th March 2008, p 1.
18. ABC News Online, Roo cull protest could turn ugly, protesters warn, 16th March 2008, p 1.
19. ABC News Online, Roo cull protest could turn ugly, protesters warn, 16th March 2008, p 1.
20. ABC News Online, Belconnen kangaroo cull to begin ‘within weeks’, 6th March 2008, p 1.
21. ABC News Online, Garrett backs roo cull, 12th March 2008, p 1.
22. ABC News Online, Belconnen kangaroo cull to begin ‘within weeks’, 6th March 2008, p 1.
23. Jennifer Browning, ABC News Online, Roos face uncertain future, 4th March 2008, p 2.
24. ABC News Online, Garrett backs roo cull, 12th March 2008, p 1.
25. ABC News Online, Roo cull fight goes global, 12th March 2008, p 2.
26. ABC News Online, Roo cull fight goes global, 12th March 2008, p 2.
