I
believe that the arguments for wildlife exploitation are based
on questionable and short-sighted economic self-interest combined
with unnecessary compromises in a naive and misguided pursuit
of ‘sustainability’. One just needs to look at the exponential
growth rate of the commercial quota figures for kangaroos over
the past decade to get a sense of the market forces behind the
kangaroo industry.
Kangaroo
farming and land degradation
There
can be no denying that much of Australia, particularly arid
and semi-arid regions have suffered greatly from overgrazing
by heavy, hard hoofed introduced animals such as sheep and cattle.
The
friends of the kangaroo industry have taken advantage of the
increasing public concern over land degradation, arguing that
soft footed kangaroos are better suited to our sensitive soils
and fragile native vegetation. Kangaroo farming has been presented
as the alternative to sheep and as a panacea to land degradation.
Restaurants
have even advertised their menu with catchy little slogans like
‘save our soils - eat kangaroo’.
The
promoters of kangaroo farming maintain that advertising like
this can increase the markets and prizes for kangaroo products
which would provide the necessary incentive for traditional
sheep and cattle graziers to ‘switch’ to kangaroos.
This
argument is appealing to those who would like to see introduced
animals removed from the arid and semi-arid zones. Even many
‘conservationists’, usually concerned about wildlife exploitation
seem prepared to sacrifice kangaroos in the belief that ‘kangaroo
farming’ is a better option to continued land degradation.
But
‘kangaroo farming’ simply is not and never will be the
answer to land degradation.
Kangaroo
farming is commercially unviable
Quite
apart from the social/ethical aspects of the debate there are
many practical obstacles facing the would-be kangaroo farmer.
The following are just some of the reasons why graziers will
not give up sheep and cattle in favour of kangaroos:
- The
reproductive capacity of kangaroos has been grossly overstated.
A female kangaroo only begins to breed in her second or even
third year, after which she can produce a maximum of one offspring
per year. Under normal conditions the mortality rate of pouch
young is very high and obviously subject to stress, drought
and flood…
- A
young kangaroo is dependent on its mother until it is at least
14 months of age and thus can not be sold or relocated as
live young. More importantly for the would-be-range farmer,
the young will die if the mother is shot too early.
- Compare
this rate of reproduction with the breeding capacity of sheep.
Sheep, unlike kangaroos can produce twins. Lambs are independent
of the mother within a few months and can be sold or relocated
alive. Sheep can begin to breed after only one year.
The
productivity of live kangaroos has also been overstated.
Kangaroos
only produce two commercial products, meat and skin. Both are
one off products requiring the animal to be killed. Sheep on
the other hand are productive throughout their lives. They produce
at least one wool clip each year as well as the final products
of meat and skin. As one New South Wales grazier explained to
an ACF/Greenpeace/ AWPC fact finding party in 1989,
"kangaroo
farming as an alternative to
sheep grazing will only be an option after we genetically
cross a kangaroo with a sheep
to produce a woollen jumper"
The
relative ability of kangaroos to produce meat is also very poor.
Lambs are slaughtered at the age of 3-6 months to produce up
to 20 kg of useful meat. Kangaroos on the other hand are simply
too small to "harvest" until that are at least 18
months of age. Furthermore, the anatomy of kangaroos leads to
a great deal of waste. Only about 10% of a kangaroo can be butchered
into useful cuts. A large adult male Red kangaroo of 60 kg will
thus only produce about 6 kg of prime cut meat. The rest will
only ever be useful as low value pet meat or meat and bone meal.
In
Melbourne, where kangaroo and wallaby meat has become available
for human consumption, there has already developed a marked
preference for the less gamey Tasmanian wallaby. This does nothing
to address land degradation and presents competition in a very
limited market for the ‘roo farmer of arid Australia.
With
all these limitations in mind, kangaroo meat would need to attract
a very high price before ‘kangaroo farming’ becomes cost effective.
Long before this became a viable option, kangaroo meat would
price itself out of the market.
Even
if kangaroo meat could attract a specialty food market willing
to pay the high prices required by legitimate "kangaroo
farmers", the market would be flooded with meat from illegally
killed kangaroos. These animals would come from areas close
to major cities, again doing nothing for the land degradation
issue.
Then
there is the Investment requirements
An
immeasurable amount of money and effort has gone into developing
the infrastructure of rural properties over many generations.
Fences, gates, stockyards as well as machinery and transport
equipment have all been designed to deal with sheep and cattle.
The
costs and efforts associated with redeveloping farms to suit
the kangaroo, together with the loss of investment by making
the existing infrastructure redundant, makes a major change
to land use practices unlikely on a grand scale.
Considering
the enormous costs involved in mobile chillers and processing
plants, Cameron ("Recovering Ground" ACF 1991) predicts:
- An
investment of $100,000 would require 45,000 - 65,000 ‘roo
carcasses per year to be viable. Investors would need to maintain
an unsustainable level of killing even when kangaroo numbers
fell during times of drought.
I
appreciate that advocates of ‘roo farming are at this stage
not talking about intensive ‘roo herding, or even eliminating
sheep altogether. Rather they are arguing that by increasing
the kangaroo proportion of a sheep/kangaroo farm the farmer
may be inclined to have less sheep. However, the sheep/kangaroo
farmer would want to increase the number of kangaroos on his/her
property. This would inevitably lead to problems associated
with kangaroo husbandry.
Sheep
and cattle were initially brought to this country because they
were already familiar to us. We have developed a wealth of information
about how to care for these animals. Research continues to further
develop our understanding of and ability to cure diseases and
increase the productivity of domestic animals.
Anyone
who has ever tried to care for sick, injured or orphaned native
Australian wildlife on the other hand will quickly testify to
the lack of knowledge in this field. Kangaroos for example,
suffer from Coccidiosis, Lumpy Jaw and Post-Capture Myopathy,
to mention just a few known disorders.
Lumpy-Jaw
generally affects the jaw of kangaroos causing swelling and
abscesses to form on the gums; the teeth loosen and fall out.
Although visible signs of the disease may take several years
to manifest themselves, the disease is highly contagious among
kangaroos. Once an area is exposed to Lumpy-Jaw any kangaroo
that ranges upon it is sure to contract the disease and die.
Once contaminated, an area must be free of kangaroos for at
least three years before the disease is eliminated.
‘Post
capture Myopathy’ is a common condition affecting kangaroos
following a chase or handling. Having an extremely low stress
threshold, kangaroos easily experience an ‘adrenalin rush’ capable
of killing the animal shortly after stress. Even if the animal
does not die quickly after the fright, it may experience bulk
muscle deterioration as a result of the excessive adrenalin
levels, rendering the animal incapable of nomadic grazing.
The
cause and treatment of such disorders remains a mystery. Little
research has been done on such disorders or the vast range of
internal and external parasites which infect native animals.
Many infections are fatal, increases with stress and/or crowding
and potentially threaten the quality of meat.
The
inability of kangaroos to be yarded, herded or easily handled
makes veterinarian care and treatment difficult. Pre-kill inspection
of animals is also not possible. ‘Kangaroo farming’ thus represents
an unacceptable risk to anyone contemplating replacing their
traditional stock with kangaroos.
Then
there is the ethical issue of owning wildlife
Acknowledging
the commercial resistance to ‘kangaroo farming’, the proponents
of the concept are quick to point out that kangaroos would only
ever be suited to ‘free range’ farming. This approach would
reduce the level of investment required for changes to farm
infrastructure such as fencing.
The
concept of ‘free ranging’ stock does however raise other important
questions. Who will own the kangaroos on any particular property?
Will ownership change as kangaroos move from one property to
another? What will prevent landholders from attracting kangaroos
from neighbouring properties? How will kangaroos on conservation
reserves be protected from being lured onto private or leased
land so that they can be ‘harvested’? Indeed, what will prevent
illegal killing of kangaroos IF the market price for kangaroo
products rise?
The
proponents of ‘kangaroo farming’ have philosophical answers
to these questions based on ‘regional cooperation’ between land
owners and other sectors of the kangaroo industry. However,
human nature including greed and competition is nicely underestimated
by such simplistic answers. At the same time, the ability of
wildlife authorities to control and manage the system is grossly
overestimated.
Even
if the obstacles to organising regional cooperation were overcome,
the issue of ownership poses other ethical and environmental
questions. What will prevent land from being overstocked by
kangaroos instead of sheep and cattle? How will the genetic
manipulation that will come from selectively killing, and therefore
selectively breeding kangaroos ultimately affect the kangaroo?
How will kangaroos in conservation areas and outside the ‘farming
areas’ be protected from such genetic manipulation?
Taking
all of the above into account, it is clear that ‘kangaroo farming’
is not the answer to the national problem of ‘land degradation’.
A few land owners in a few places may switch to kangaroos. However,
the great majority would simply farm both the kangaroo and their
traditional stock. Kangaroo farming in the arid and semi-arid
zones would simply be used to prop up the traditional compulsion
to overgraze. In the process, the kangaroo would lose its wild
status by becoming yet just another exploited ‘farm’ animal.
Kangaroo
farming is socially unacceptable
The
advocates of kangaroo farming may argue that differentiating
between domestic and wild animals is emotional and that there
is nothing sacred about the kangaroo. However, as the kangaroo
is uniquely Australian and represents our most obvious and well
known form of wildlife, there will always be people who resist
its exploitation.
These
people will always be ready to point out the ethical issues
associated with removing the wild status of kangaroos via the
subtle process of domestication and de facto ownership of wildlife.
While
the advocates of kangaroo farming may feel confident about the
change in public attitude toward kangaroos, the priority of
‘traditional wildlife conservation’ will not be compromised
for the potential profits that may go to a small number of people.
The
markets for kangaroos will constantly be disrupted by exposure
to outbreaks of Salmonella and other diseases; public outcry
over cruelty and illegal kangaroo killing.
Graziers
will not risk giving up a traditional secure market for sheep
and cattle products for the tenuous promises of the kangaroo
market.
The
arguments for farming kangaroos are no more than diversions
and props for the increased commercial exploitation of the kangaroo
and will do nothing to resolve the issues of land degradation.
Management
programs
In
the past the stated objectives of Federal and State
Government
plans have been to:
- Maintain
populations of kangaroos over their natural range; and
- Contain
the deleterious effects of kangaroos on other land management
practices
WHY
then have the great decreases in kangaroo
populations within areas of intensive agriculture been ignored
yet kangaroo numbers are reported to have increased within the
commercial shooting zones?
WHY
have the Federal and State Governments
allowed a shooting ratio of males to females which actively
promotes massive fluctuations in kangaroo numbers in areas said
to have ‘roo problems’?
WHY
does the number of kangaroos killed
dramatically increase as soon as there is a profit motive as
was clearly shown in Victoria during the early 1980’s?
Unfortunately,
I fear that the ‘education and public relations’ machinery behind
wildlife utilisation may already have been too successful. Seeing
emus in small enclosures is hardly inspiring. The complacency
that comes from knowing crocodiles will never be threatened
because there are plenty of crocs on farms does little for their
protection in the wild. Eating a possum in a restaurant hardly
encourages an appreciation of this wild creature that has learned
to coexist with us in our urban sprawls. Knowing that a kangaroo
is commercially killed every five seconds of every night of
the year can hardly develop a sense of national pride in our
unique wildlife.
I
fear that these exploited, domesticated images may become overwhelming
as more wildlife are added to the list of exploited animals…
I
fear that in the end, unless there is a mind shift away from
wildlife utilisation, this ‘society’ of people who advocate
wildlife utilisation will have had the greatest impact on Australian
wildlife since the acclimatisation society. And because of greed
and self-interest combined with a reluctance to properly address
issues such as over grazing, we will still be stuck with land
degradation, tree decline, species loss…We will just have less
people that are concerned about these issues until they affect
them directly.
How
can we possibly conserve wildlife by farming and commercially
exploiting them? As for "sustainability", if you say
we can promote ‘sustainable agriculture’ by domesticating wildlife,
then I argue that until you properly and honestly address the
real issues of land degradation which are over-grazing,
over-clearing, over-use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers,
you are simply propping up the status quo. You are making unnecessary
compromises in the name of self interest, which has no bearing
on how we treat the land, nor will it enact the necessary changes
and land reforms so desperately required.
"Resourcism
is a kind of modern religion which casts all of creation into
categories of utility. By treating everything as homogeneous
matter in search of a use it devalues all. Yet its most dangerous
aspect is its apparent good intentions.
By
describing something as a resource we seem to have cause to
protect it. But all we really have is a licence to exploit it".
(Evernden
1985 The Natural Alien p. 21)
