University of Queensland
Professor Gordon Grigg
Tony Pople (former student)
Gordon Grigg / Tony Pople wrote
'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos"

Professor Michael Archer
Australian Museum
Dr Tim Flannery SA Museum

"Harvesting will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths. To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote the rate of increase. (e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplement its resources)"

"Rates of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the extinction of the populations (Arguments will be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource such as for Tourism)."

In 1998 Gordon Grigg, completed 21 years of getting paid by the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service: 'New Scientist' 12 September, 2000 "Australia has 30 million kangaroos, give or take five million"

" GRIGG strongly queries whether the cull is needed for its stated purpose - to protect sheep grazing land from the ravages caused by large numbers of kangaroos. if anything, according to the observations made by the team, sheep damage the land more than the kangaroos. "

"For example, in an area east of Lake Frome, where kangaroo densities are as high as 50 per square kilometre and sheep numbers are comparatively low, the land is not degraded. It is in other places where sheep numbers are high and kangaroo numbers are low" (GRIGG)

March 11 - 12, 1999 Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee, DUBBO Tabled by TONY POPLE:

• "The kangaroo density at which improvements to the pastoral industry are more than marginal is unknown. Large broadscale reductions in kangaroo density are a form of insurance against intermittent competition and may help rehabilitate degraded land."
  
• " Will these benefits from a reduction in kangaroo numbers compensate for the reduction in long-term harvest offtake?"
  
• " Will the kangaroo industry operate at markedly reduced densities?"

"LAND DEGRADATION
Based on historical records in South Australia, recruitment and regeneration of shrubs and trees is negatively associated with the intensity of sheep grazing. " (Tony Pople in Dubbo March 1999)

HARVESTING KANGAROOS FOR A SUSTAINED YIELD (Tony Pople)

• "Currently, management employs a 'tracking strategy' where a fixed proportion (15-20%) of the population can be harvested each year". *Before Peter Alexander's deal with 'Wildlife Use Committee' for increase in 2000 quota for SA )
  
• "Modelling suggests an MSY for a non-selective harvest of 10-15%/"
  
• "Harvesting at this rate will depress long-term mean density by 30-40%."
  
• "Present kangaroo density is an important determinant of future density, such that populations are slow to recover. "

* Peter Alexander S.A. Resource Officer - GPO Box 1047 Adelaide South Australia 5001
This means that Peter Alexander strongly misleads when he says that kangaroos are the real culprit and blaming them for the land degradation while it is sheep and feral animals that continue to degrade the land in SA. There appears to have been collusion between the Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use & Peter Alexander to obtain higher SA kill 2000 Quotas .

Peter Alexander in his South Australia QUOTAS 2000 Document :

"South Australia has consistently argued for and requested higher kangaroo harvesting quotas on the grounds of seeking to contribute to a broadscale effort to improve land condition. During 1999 an agreement was reached with Commonwealth Government's Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use"

So Peter Alexander got permission to kill more S.A. kangaroos.

This directly conflicts with Gordon Grigg, who says that sheep are the cause of land degradation.
The make-up of Senator (Robert Hill) David Kemp's Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use is:
CSIRO Division of Plant Industry, Institute of Foresters of Australia, Australian Veterinary Association, Council of Heads of Australian Botanic Gardens , CSIRO Division of Fisheries, Australian Academy of Science, Ecological Society of Australia (Gordon Grigg or controlled by Grigg), Australasian Wildlife Management Society (Gordon Grigg or controlled by Grigg) and an Independent Chair (chosen by the Minister).

While these scientists may be expert in their field, there is no voice for the welfare of kangaroos, no voice for Tourism and related non-consumptive use, no voice to say that kangaroos should not be killed as a resource because they have intrinsic value and no voice to speak against the largest and fittest males being singled out by the commercial industry, leaving kangaroo populations a teetering pyramid. This disregard for important stakeholders like the $6billion nature-based tourism industry, and breaches of ecological and scientific oversight are indeed very serious.

Gordon Grigg, Dan Lunney and Peter Hale Queensland University 1995 "Conservation Through Sustainable Use "
{Dan Lunney and Chris Dickman NSW NPWS, assist Michael Archer (20.5.00) Seminar "Keep Wildlife As Pets" }

'There is a long standing public perception that kangaroos cause less damage than sheep and other hoofed exotic herbivores.'

• 'The need for land holders to have some sort of proprietary rights over the resource'
  
• 'the need for a reduced and less prescriptive role of government in regulation of the industry
  
• a recognition of the importance of a return to land holders as stakeholders in kangaroo matters'
  
• ' the need for support by government in the educative process both nationally and internationally to combat the negatives that have been traditionally associated with kangaroo harvest, In other words, the need for kangaroo management in a Total Grazing Pressure context needs to be promoted…"
  
• Gordon Grigg (Australasian Wildlife Management Society AGM December 2001 Dubbo) now says that kangaroos are not as big a component of total grazing pressure as once thought and this may have been overestimated by up to 500%.

Tony Pople and Steve Mc Leod 'Kangaroo Management and the Sustainable Use of Rangelands (September 1998)
'The paper reviews the scientific reasoning behind the commercial harvesting of kangaroos'.

"Many argue that kangaroos are agents of land degradation, hamper vegetation and compete with domestic stock, but the evidence to support these views is often lacking."

"A consequence of reduced kangaroo population size is reduced long-term harvest off-take, which could compromise the commercial viability of the kangaroo industry"

"The lack of knowledge in some key areas is hampering progress and can be addressed through active adaptive management of kangaroo populations."

Dr Steve Mc Leod NSW Agriculture who completed a four year study concluded that kangaroos are disadvantaged by sheep and do not compete but he still supports THE COMMERCIAL cull. Has it occurred to him that there is an alternative to the killing of kangaroos for profit and that kangaroos are more valuable alive than dead. Why punish the kangaroo when there are alternatives such as Nature-based eco-tourism that are not being actively pursued. Why do a study that you ignore?

Gordon Grigg further exacerbates the lie when he says in the new Scientist Magazine:

"Kangaroos should be regarded as a resource…It's not inconceivable that one day pastoralists will find that the kangaroos, the animal they have long detested, has more economic value than sheep" (1998) Yes, but kangaroos ALIVE not dead!

BUT AND BECAUSE; GRIGG has completely disregarded the November 1996 Paper by Queensland's the Principal Agricultural Economist, J.R. Peter Hardman:

'The WILD HARVEST AND MARKETING OF KANGAROOS:
'A Case Study of the profitability of kangaroos Compared With Sheep/ Beef in Queensland '
"Even though kangaroos are fairly sedentary , how can a grazier be consistently certain about the availability for harvest of unfenced animals?"
"…the recovery time from drought for kangaroos is much longer…"

"It is over simplistic, unrealistic, and incorrect to claim that the conversion of traditional grazing properties to kangaroo harvesting properties will rectify land degradation."

"One of the concerns about commercial harvesting of kangaroos and wallabies is the possibility of over-harvesting. Quotas are seen as a safety net to prevent over harvesting"

"…Thus kangaroos are likely to be considered by graziers as providing unwanted competition to sheep and cattle rather than a resource. Solving the problem of land degradation, will require other methods and approaches. In summary, it is most unlikely to be done by replacing sheep/beef with kangaroo harvesting."

The lie continues and kangaroos are brutally killed at ever increasing rates for a myth.

The Australian Museum in Sydney has a long history and in years past, Ellis Troughton wrote a Creed for Nature Lovers.
"That any wholesale sacrificing of native animals for monetary gain, in a country so Rich in resources of grain, stock and minerals, is a confession of incompetence and wasteful greed, unworthy of the Australian Commonwealth."

But Archer is not a listener and refuses to see he is wrong. He says "Farmers can get filthy stinking rich killing kangaroos".
In fact, Terry Korn NSW NPWS Director Western wrote "I would be surprised if anyone will get filthy stinking rich killing kangaroos…" (April 3, 2000)

Chris Harwood, from the Gold Coast-based Overseas Game Meat Export, says that " programs such as Burke's Backyard have encouraged people to see the meat as a healthy alternative." The SA Museums' Tim Flannery ate rare kangaroo meat on Burke's Backyard continues to be controversial. Burke's Backyard has long been on the side of 'hierarchy' of those who have betrayed the kangaroo. He employs John Dengate, former NSW NPWS officer who said :

"Kangaroos are clearly a pest that needs controlling, but nothing can justify the irresponsible actions shown on the program. All PEST animals deserve a humane end"

Eating undercooked kangaroo meat is a risk to human health. Des Sibraa, a lawyer and former chief food inspector for NSW says: "the problem with kangaroo meat is that, unlike pork - it is usually served rare. Over cooking can make a kangaroo steak as tough as an old boot. " ( The Toronto Star February 21, 2000) "What the inspectors can't pick up, because they don't look at the animal before it is killed, is whether the kangaroo was suffering from disease." (ante mortem inspection). This incidentally, is why Canada and at least two other countries do not allow kangaroo meat to be imported"

Disciples of Grigg Pople , Archer and Flannery

• Dr David Butcher WWF supports elephant Ivory Trade (CAMPFIRE)and commercial kangaroo killing industry
  
• Dr George Wilson former ANCA (EA) - kangaroos should pay own way, supports commercial kangaroo industry
  
• Dr Tony Bigwood EA former Wildlife Population Assessment Unit - supports commercial killing industry
  
• Dr David Freudenberger CSIRO, Wildlife & Ecology - cull more and more kangaroos. Represents pastoralists. Wants to reduce kangaroo numbers to 'tolerable' levels. "When do we utilise wildlife? When it please us" (ISSUES 1994)
  
• Dr Geoff Lundie-Jenkins QEH Toowoomba, Queensland - supports commercial kill/ wants to reduce kangaroo numbers to 'tolerable' numbers
  
• Dr Ron Hacker, NSW Dept Agriculture; reduce kangaroos to 'tolerable' levels for land holders Wrote " Alternate Management Strategies for Kangaroos in the Murray Darling Basin" supports commercial kangaroo killing industry
  
• Dr Andrew Tribe Oueensland AVA Representative, Grigg colleague on Kemp's Scientific Advisory Committee
  
• Dr Steve Mc Leod NSW Agriculture four year study concluded that kangaroos are disadvantaged by sheep and do not compete but still supports COMMERCIAL kill
  
• Dr Stuart Cairns Qld. aerial surveys on Mulyungarie supports ommercial kangaroo killing - supports Grigg
  
• ACF Director Don Henry. Is long time supporter of commercial kill; ignores ACF Policy vs kangaroo industry

Maryland Wilson

President

Member of NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee
National/ International Kangaroo Protection Campaign

Editor: "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!"