VIVA (Vegetarian International Voice for Animals): 'Save the Kangaroo'
From EnvironmentWiki
--Nichole Hoskin 16:32, 28 June 2008 (EST)
Report on the Killing of Kangaroos for Meat and Skin, Published 2006 (www.savethekangaroo.com) by Juliet Gellatley BSc (Zoology), Founder and Director of Viva
On the issue of whether the Code of Practice is legally enforceable, according to Gellatley, “the reason it is called a Code is because it is precisely that. It is a guideline for shooters to follow but lacks any clout in law. The National Kangaroo Campaign, Australia state:
‘The Code is a voluntary code only and no provision exists in it for permits/licenses to be suspended in the event of failure to adhere to the Code.’”[1] The statement that the Code of Practice is a guideline and ‘lacks any clout in law’ is clearly wrong when we consider the regulation of shooters and the use of various legal mechanisms to ensure that the Code of Practice is enforced in Australia (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting). The statement that the Code of Practice does not include provisions for the suspension of licenses for non-compliance is technically correct, since the Code of Practice does not address this issue. However, this statement fails to consider regulations and conditions of licenses that do specifically address this issue.
Gellatley claims that, “even if the wildlife authorities had powers to enforce the Code they could not use them as the shooting takes place at night in remote areas without monitoring.”[2] In contrast to this view, RSPCA Australia’s report into compliance with the Code of Practice established that the most reliable method of assessing compliance was through an examination of skins, which overcomes the challenges associated with monitoring night harvesting across remote and large areas. (See, Animal Welfare,Compliance with the Code of Practice)
Gellatley also claims, that according to the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, “the Code of Practice is legally unenforceable”.[3] However, State Governments have prosecuted shooters for non-compliance with the Code of Practice and the regulatory framework in place for commercial harvesting.(See, Animal Welfare Areas of Concern)
In relation to whether the commercial quotas represent the numbers of kangaroos killed, for Gellatley, “According to the Australian Wildlife Protection Council: ‘the number of kangaroos and wallabies actually killed each year is as high as twice that of the Federal set commercial quota.’ In other words, in 2006, the Government set official for the number of kangaroos to be killed at 3.8 million; in reality millions more will be slaughtered.”[4] The argument that shooters kill more kangaroos each year than the commercial quota is incorrect considering that, between 2001 and 2006, the numbers of kangaroos shot for commercial purposes was an average of 63% of the quota. (See, Commercial Harvest, Quotas)
On the issue of whether commercial kangaroo shooters are cruel to kangaroos, according to Gellatley, “when I was in Australia, amateur hunters admitted to cases of joeys being used as footballs; to stamping on joeys heads (but not killing them); to using crowbars or bashing heads against a wheel brace or just leaving them to die.”[5] It is interesting that Gellatley uses evidence of conversations with ‘amateur’ shooters, since RSPCA Australia found that there were higher incidences of cruelty to kangaroos in non-commercial shooting than in commercial shooting. Given this finding, along with RSPCA Australia’s recommendation that State Governments phase out non-commercial shooting because of the cruelty, it is arguable that Gellatley has merely found opinions that supports RSPCA Australia’s findings. (See, Animal Welfare Areas of Concern and Animal Welfare Non-Commercial Shooting) However, these opinions do not reflect on commercial shooting, which is heavy regulated, with shooters required to complete training courses in commercial harvesting and a firearm accreditation and accuracy test as a pre-condition for the grant of a licence. (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting, Licence Conditions)
On the issue of dealing with young after the shooting of their mother, RSPCA Australia’s 2002 report found that some commercial shooters avoided shooting females to avoid killing dependent young. There was also evidence of some commercial shooters finding the requirement to kill young repugnant and others reported taking dependent young home to raise or to have friends to raise. Given that there is evidence of sensitivity to animal welfare issues arising from shooting mother kangaroos, it is questionable whether all shooters are engaging in cruelty to kangaroos. (See, Animal Welfare Areas of Concern Killing of orphaned pouch young and young at foot)
In addition to the opinions of ‘amateur shooters’, Gellatley also quotes the opinion of Dr John Auty BVSc, who apparently has studied the killing of kangaroos in Australia. According to Dr Auty, “Shooters often have a thorough contempt of the law and the Code. They commit cruelty on a regular basis.”[6] Given that it is unclear whether Dr Auty is referring to commercial shooters or non-commercial shooters or both, it is questionable that this is an accurate reflection of attitudes of all shooters to the law and the Code of Practice. RSPCA Australia's 2002 report on Compliance with the Code of Practice contradicts this view. RSPCA Australia’s report found that the industry had adopted standards the standard of a head shot because it did not damage the meat or skin, despite the absence of regulations requiring a zero tolerance approach in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. (See, Animal Welfare, Compliance with the Code of Practice)
Gellatley also quotes an unnamed “kangaroo shooter of 20 years who moved to London”.[7] According to this shooter, “We often shoot kangaroos in the leg because it was a much easier target than the head. You hoped that it would slow them enough to find them and finish them off. That could take some time. I’ve seen kangaroos running with their guts spilling out…I’m not proud of what I’ve done; I just wanted to tell you that the kangaroo industry is lying.”[8] As with Dr Auty’s statements, it is unclear whether the shooter was a commercial shooter or a non-commercial shooter. This lack of clarity means that it is questionable whether this quote is evidence that the kangaroo industry is lying since it is unclear that this shooter was part of the industry.
RSPCA Australia’s 2002 report contradicts this statement with findings that the compliance rate with the Code of Practice, amongst commercial shooters, was 95.9% across the four States, with New South Wales with the highest rate of compliance at 97.3%. (See, Animal Welfare, Compliance with the Code of Practice) RSPCA Australia also found that it was possible to monitor for compliance with the Code of Practice by inspecting skins and carcasses, which led RSPCA Australia to recommend that Australian Governments establish independent monitoring of commercial harvesting compliance with the Code of Practice focusing on the processor level. (See, Animal Welfare, Compliance with the Code of Practice)
While the rates of compliance with the Code of Practice amongst commercial shooters is high, RSPCA Australia found evidence that non-commercial shooters engaged in cruelty to kangaroos by using body shots. RSPCA Australia also found that some commercial shooters had experiences of having to shoot injured kangaroos after shooting by non-commercial or illegal shooters. (See: Animal Welfare Areas of Concern, Non-Commercial Shooting and Illegal Shooting)
Gellatley also uses IFAW Australia footage of a “experienced unlicensed but commercial killer, and his son of about 10 years”.[9] Given that the laws in each State and the Code of Practice require commercial shooters to have a licence and tag all carcasses and skins, the fact that the shooter in the IFAW footage is unlicensed means that he is an illegal shooter. (See, Commercial Harvest, Regulation) Given that Western Australia has prosecuted shooters for supplying untagged carcasses and processes for accepting untagged carcasses, with the absence of a tag an indication of illegal shooting of the kangaroo (ie, shooters without a commercial shooters licence), it is questionable whether the shooter in this footage is unlawfully shooting for a commercial purpose. (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting and Animal Welfare Areas of Concern, Illegal Shooting)
According to John Kelly of the Kangaroo Industry Association Australia (KIAA), “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.”[10]
As becomes apparent from the above discussion, Gellatley’s claims are problematic because there is a failure to consider expert opinion, scientific evidence and the regulatory framework for commercial harvesting. Gellatley’s claims are also problematic because it is unclear whether the opinions she cites refer to commercial shooting or to non-commercial and illegal shooting, which RSPCA Australia found to be cruel.
On the issue of RSPCA Australia's position in relation to commercial shooting of kangaroos, Gellatley, appearing to cite RSPCA Australia's 1985 finding of a compliance rate of 86%, claims RSPCA Australia “found that ‘at least 15% of kangaroos killed commercially die inhumanely’.”[11] This quote is problematic because it is inaccurate and this report is now out-of-date because of the later 2002 report by RSPCA Australia, which found significant improvements with the rate of compliance amongst commercial shooters. (See, Animal Welfare, Compliance with the Code of Practice)
In addition to inaccurately citing out-of-date compliance rates, Gellatley also claims, “RSPCA Australia today opposes the setting of quotas and further opposes the commercial kangaroo industry because of the inherent cruelty involved in the killing.”[12] Gellatley also quotes the Victorian Director of RSPCA to suggest that RSPCA Australia is opposed to the commercial harvesting of kangaroos. In contradiction to this claim, RSPCA Australia’s 2002 report recommended that State Governments phase out non-commercial shooting, with only commercial shooting of kangaroos, because of the cruelty found with non-commercial shooting. (See, Animal Welfare, Areas of Concern) RSPCA Australia’s policy position also contradicts Gellatley’s claim, as does RSPCA Australia’s support for the cull of 400 kangaroos on a Department of Defence site in Belconnen. (See, Animal Welfare, Position of RSPCA Australia and Culling of kangaroos in Belconnen).
Addressing the issue of whether kangaroos are pests for farmers, Gellatley’s arguments that kangaroos are not a pest for crop growers, Gellatley succeeds in raising the valid question of whether the perceptions of farmers reflects the reality of kangaroos effects in crop growing areas, by quoting a CSIRO report on the effects of land clearing on kangaroo populations.[13] While these arguments generally appear to be valid, it is unclear which kangaroo species the CSIRO report considers since the general term ‘kangaroo’ is used.[14] Given that there are some endangered species of kangaroos, such as the Rat-kangaroo and Tree-kangaroos, it is potentially misleading to use the general term kangaroo without specific details on whether the CSIRO report considers Red Kangaroos, Western grey kangaroo and Eastern grey kangaroos, which are subject to commercial harvesting. (See, Population Numbers and Commercial Harvest)
Gellatley challenges the claim that kangaroos are in competition with sheep and cattle for pastures in Australia by citing research by academics.[15] While Gellatley quotes various academic researchers, Gellatley fails to provide information to enable the assessment of the veracity of these conclusions, such as evidence supporting the researchers’ conclusions and evidence that the conclusions are generally applicable.
On the issue of whether artificial watering points effect the size of kangaroo populations, according to Gellatley, a study in Sturt National Park (Strategic Management of AWP for Biodiversity, Conservation and Nature Based Tourism) reveals, “that kangaroo distribution is not related to ‘water-focused grazing patterns’ but is mainly determined by the best grazing and resting spots.”[16] While this may be true for the distribution of kangaroos, this argument fails to address the scientific evidence of the effect of rainfall and drought on kangaroo populations, with evidence of reductions in kangaroo populations during times of drought and recovery to pre-drought numbers when rainfall recommences. (See Population Numbers) Given that Gellatley fails to consider evidence of the effects of the presence or absence of water on kangaroo populations, it is arguable that she has failed to prove that artificial watering points do not affect kangaroo numbers.
In relation to whether kangaroos are in competition with sheep and cattle for pastures, for Gellatley, “Research on Red Kangaroos by Amanda Bilton and David Croft (University of New South Wales) was even more disturbing when it revealed that far from numbers booming, few joeys survive. The average number of young weaned in a lifetime is only 3.7 (41% less than their potential). Half the females weaned less offspring than expected and a quarter left no offspring at all.”[17] Given that scientist have observed higher juvenile mortality in kangaroo populations during deterioration of environmental conditions, such as drought, it is essential to know whether this research occurred during a time of drought or other deterioration of environmental conditions. (See, Population Numbers, Kangaroo Populations in Harvesting Areas) This failure means that it is impossible to assess whether this research supports the pre-existing scientific evidence of the affects of environmental conditions on kangaroo populations.
Pople and Grigg caution that juvenile survival rates are the poorest and most variable of all kangaroo population classes. (See, Population Numbers, Kangaroo Populations in Harvesting Areas) Given the variability of juvenile survival rates, it is arguable that Gellatley fails to provide evidence that kangaroo populations are not thriving as the kangaroo industry claims.
On the issue of the accuracy of population counting methodology for kangaroo populations, Gellatley claims, kangaroo counting “methodology has been criticised for many years for its inaccuracy. Correction factors are used to guess the true population levels…Every state uses different correction factors and they keep changing—sometimes more than doubling! The kangaroo populations can double overnight according to this counting method—a method obviously deeply flawed.”[18] Given that Gellatley fails to provide evidence to support this argument, it is questionable whether Gellatley’s claims are valid. Even if we give Gellatley the benefit of the doubt, the fact that different states use different correction factors is not sufficient to raise doubts about the estimates of kangaroo populations since it is possible that these differences result from differences in circumstances and the environmental conditions across States.
Despite failing to provide evidence to support her claims, Gellatley cites the opinion of “Pat O’Brien, Wildlife Protection Association of Australia” to support her claims. According to Gellatley, O’Brien “believes the Australian Government fudges the figures in favour of the kangaroo industry. He states that before 2001, Government agencies estimated a kangaroo population of 25 million; by 2002 it would be impossible for the population to more than double.”[19] It is interesting to note that Gellatley provides a table of DEWHA figures, under the heading of ‘National Kangaroo Population Estimates for Commercially Harvested Areas’, which directly contradicts these claims.[20] According to DEWHA data, the total population of kangaroos in the four States in 2001 was estimates at 57,430,026. (See: [1]) In 2002, DEWHA data estimates the total population of kangaroos at 43,845,532. (See: [2]) This data reveals that DEWHA does not claim that there was a doubling in kangaroo populations between 2001 and 2002. Given that there are significant differences between O’Brien’s claims and the data available from a Federal Government agency, it is questionable whether Australian Governments are fudging the figures to favour the kangaroo industry. On the contrary, the disparities between O’Brien’s claims and estimates of kangaroo populations raise questions of why O’Brien is misleading the public with unsubstantiated claims.
For Gellatley, “there is no evidence to show that kangaroos are commercially killed for meat and skin today as a method of population control. This claim of ‘population control’ becomes particularly hollow when you realise that the kangaroos are not culled. A genuine cull aims to reduce the size of a population and involves killing whole family groups…only the largest and fittest animals are shot and usually more males are killed (because they are bigger); leaving young females to breed rapidly. The commercial killing industry is not an organised cull working with the best interests of the kangaroo at its heart.”[21] Considering that Gellatley claims to aim to save the kangaroo, it is strange that she is critical of the selective commercial harvesting of kangaroos, which often leaves young females who can rapidly breed. This is because when shooters leave young females who can rapidly breed, they effectively ensure that kangaroo populations remain viable. Given that Australian Governments aim to allow the sustainable commercial harvesting of kangaroos, clearly Australian Governments aim use ‘culls’ to reduce kangaroo numbers, rather than aiming to completely remove kangaroo populations indiscriminately. (See Regulation of Commercial Harvesting) Since Australian Governments are aiming to ensure that kangaroo populations are viable into the future, it is arguable that Australian Governments have implemented policies, with the best interests of kangaroos at its heart, by allowing selective commercial harvesting to reduce kangaroo numbers.
While Gellatley appears to misunderstand what Australian Governments are trying to achieve in relation to kangaroo populations, she raises the valid point that it is unclear what the effect of selective culling has on age and sex structures within herds.[22] However, there is evidence that kangaroo populations with fewer juveniles and males have higher rates of increase. (See, Population Numbers) Since it is possible that reductions in males has the effect of higher increase rates in kangaroo populations, it is questionable whether the uncertainty surrounding consequences of selective harvesting justifies stopping the commercial harvesting of kangaroos.
In relation to trends in population numbers for kangaroos, Gellatley claims, “there are worrying signs of populations falling today… Due to the steady increase in the size of the annual massacre and the decrease in habitat, numbers are set to fall nationally.”[23] However, it is questionable that evidence of national quotas and kills supports this claim. (See, Commercial Harvest, Quotas) Given that DEWHA data reveals that there is a total of 45,510,945 hectares of reserves throughout Australia that are suitable as habitat for kangaroo populations of major commercial species, when reserves greater than 10,000 hectares are considered, it is questionable whether Gellatley’s claims of declining habitat are accurate. (See, Regulation of Commercial Harvesting)
Gellatley argues that commercially harvested species of kangaroos have suffered a dramatic decline between 2000 and 2005.[24] While the data on kangaroo populations supports this conclusion, it is relevant to note that large areas of Australia have been drought-declared throughout this period. Given that evidence from previous droughts shows that kangaroo populations decline during drought but rebound when rainfall recommences, it is arguable that drought has caused this decline in kangaroo population numbers. (See Population Numbers) It is also relevant to note that evidence also shows that the continuation of commercial harvesting through a drought period does not affect the ability of kangaroo populations to rebound. (See, Commercial Harvest, Quotas)
Despite previously arguing that it is unclear what effects the harvesting of the largest and healthiest kangaroos has on the sex and age ratios of kangaroo populations, Gellatley cites the speculative opinions to argue that commercial shooting leads to breeding by genetically inferior kangaroos by killing the largest kangaroos.[25] However, given that it is unclear whether the commercial shooting of kangaroos is changing the age and sex ratios of kangaroo populations, it is also unclear that the weakest animals are the only animals left to breed. It is also questionable that commercial harvesting of kangaroos is exclusively removing males, particularly in light of the fact that the Code of Practice regulates the killing of pouch young and young at foot.
It is interesting to note that RSPCA Australia recommended that shooters avoid shooting female kangaroos, although they acknowledge that Australian Governments need scientific research on the effects of adopting this policy on the gender balance in kangaroo populations. (See, Animal Welfare Areas of Concern)
According to Gellatley, “the general trend has been a steady increase in State kills since the 1970s.”[26] However, what becomes apparent from the data on quotas and kills is that commercial shooting kills less kangaroos than the quota and that there were significant declines in quotas during the mid 1990s. (See, Commercial Harvest, Quotas)
Gellatley points to evidence that the post-European settlement introduction of domestic livestock has resulted in damage to rangelands to argue that Europeans are also responsible for the destruction of commercially harvested kangaroo species.[27] It is interesting to note that Pople and Grigg agree that the introduction of domestic livestock has caused damage to rangelands.[28] However, while there is evidence that Europeans in Australia have caused environmental damage and extinction of some macropoid species, there is no evidence that this is the case in relation to commercially harvested kangaroo species.
It is interesting to note that Gellatley fails to consider the additional reasons, cited by Pople and Grigg, which led Australians to perceive kangaroos as pests, including damage to fences and damage and injury resulting from collisions between kangaroos and vehicles.[29] A drive through the farming areas of the Central West region of New South Wales quickly reveals, through kangaroo carcasses left on the side of roads, that collisions between kangaroos and vehicles are frequent occurrences.
References
1. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’ p 6.
2. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 1.
3. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 1.
4. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 6.
5. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’ p 7.
6. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’ p 7.
7. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’ , p 7.
8. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’ p 7.
9. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 7.
10. John Kelly, Viva, a case study in misinformation, Background Information, p 3. (by John Kelly, Director of Lenah Games Meats in Launceston, Tasmania and Executive Officer of Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia)
11. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 2.
12. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 4.
13. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, pp 3-4.
14. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, pp 3-4.
15. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 4.
16. Juliet Gellatley,‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 4.
17. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 5.
18. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 5.
19. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 5. See also Gellatley’s discussion of kangaroo population figures on p 6.
20. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, pp 6-7.
21. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 5.
22. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 5.
23. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 6.
24. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 6.
25. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, pp 1-3.
26. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, p 4.
27. Juliet Gellatley, ‘Report on the Killing and Kangaroos for Meat and Skin’, pp 4-6.
28. Tony Pople and Gordon Grigg, Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Chapter 7, p 5.
29. Tony Pople and Gordon Grigg, Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Chapter 7, p 5.
