WILDLIFE
AND THE VICTORIAN WILDLIFE ACT 1975.
"Wild"
means in the original state, not domesticated or cultivated. Thus
wildlife species are those living in an undomesticated or uncultivated
state. The Wildlife Act 1975 defines "wildlife" in part
as (Section 3 (1) ) :
"Any animal of a vertebrate species other than mankind which
is indigenous to the
whole or part or parts of Australia or its territories ..."
This definition encompasses all Australian macropod or "kangaroo"
species and automatically grants them status as "Protected
Wildlife" under Section 3 (1).
Section 3
(4) of the Wildlife Act 1975 extends references to wildlife to
include:
" ... wildlife in any form, whether alive or dead and whether
the flesh is raw or cooked
or preserved in any manner whatsoever and includes the skin, pelage,
fur or any other part thereof ..."
Thus the Act also automatically grants the skins and meat of kangaroos
status as "Protected Wildlife".
The Wildlife
Act 1975 is listed under Part I of the Schedule of the Ministry
for Conservation Act 1972. As a consequence, the Wildlife Act
must achieve the objects of the Ministry for Conservation Act
and therefore the Minister has mandatory duties to (Section 5
(1) ) :
"(d) ... promote the protection and proper management of
the wildlife ... of Victoria;".
"(e) ... protect and maintain the habitats of the wildlife
... of Victoria;".
Thus it is
clear that the Minister for Conservation has the duty to protect
kangaroos and control commercial exploitation. It is my concern
that current practices pose a real threat to kangaroo populations.
I present arguments below to support this contention and recommend
courses of action to the Minister to overcome these threats.
COMMERCIALIZATION
OF WILDLIFE.
The basis
of Charles Darwin's principle of natural selection is that all
species produce a surplus of offspring in each generation. In
agriculture we select a set number of provide the next crop and
harvest the surplus - a process Darwin called "artificial
selection". For wildlife species, natural factors kill off
the less fit individuals and only the fittest survive to produce
the next generation. This is the process Darwin called "natural
selection".
To emphasize
the point on reproductive potential, Darwin estimated that elephants
don't start breeding until 30 years old and each female produces
only six offspring in a lifetime, yet if all the offspring of
a single pair could survive and reproduce there would be 15 million
elephants alive after 500 years. Harvesting of wildlife species
seeks to utilize the "excess" offspring in each generation
rather than letting natural forces select the fittest.
In the case
of kangaroos, selective shooting replaces drought stress, food
shortages etc. This is the fundamental scientific objection to
the commercialization of wildlife, natural selection is replaced
by artificial selection and the wildlife status of the species
is changed.
COMMERCIALIZATION
OF KANGAROOS
Kangaroos
occupy a unique place in the public appreciation of wildlife.
They are the largest native Australian mammals and D. W. E. Poole
stated in his 1977 CONCOM Report "Management of Kangaroo
Harvesting in Australia (A.N.P. & W.L.S., 1977) :
" ... kangaroos are possibly the best known of our fauna,
and hence for many
Australians 'wildlife' means kangaroos and 'wildlife conservation'
means preserving
kangaroos."
Dr. Poole is undoubtedly correct and in a very real sense uncritical
acceptance of kangaroo killing for commercial gain will make it
difficult or impossible to prevent the same happening to other
wildlife species.
Although
kangaroos enjoy the general status of "Protected Wildlife",
the Wildlife (General) Regulations 1980 actually set a wildlife
trappers and controllers royalty of $5-00 per specimen for species
from the genera Macropus and Thylogale.
Recommendation
1: The Minister removes mention of specimens of the genera Macropus
and Thylogale from Schedule 12 of the Wildlife (General) Regulations
as one step in the de-commercialization of kangaroos in Victoria.
STATUS
OF PESTS AND VERMIN.
Species whose
presence and abundance appears to conflict with human interest
are labelled as "pests" or "vermin". This
subjective classification has serious management implications
as it changes the perceived status of the species. If the labelling
becomes official, for example by proclamation under the Vermin
and Noxious Weeds Act 1958, the legal status of the species also
changes. Exemption clauses in the Wildlife Act 1975 and the Protection
of Animals Act 1966 to facilitate vermin eradication and pest
control illustrate this point.
Although
kangaroos have not been proclaimed as vermin or pests since the
Wildlife Act was passed in 1975, the defacto Victorian kangaroo
management program practised over the last two decades is actually
based on pest control in agricultural areas (see below, exploitation
of Section 5).
KANGAROOS
AS PESTS AND VERMIN.
The conventional
wisdom on kangaroos is that they benefit from conversion of natural
vegetation to agricultural land use and their numbers increase
as a consequence. As kangaroos are thought to compete with stock
for food, destroy crops etc., they are generally seen as agricultural
pests. So entrenched is this view that a substantial chapter on
kangaroos was included in the recent C.S.I.R.O. book "The
Ecology of Pests: Some Australian Case Histories" (Kitching
and Jones, 1981), although the article was mainly devoted to commercial
harvesting.
The idea
of kangaroos as almost inevitable pests on agricultural lands
is now under challenge. A chapter by Dr. M. Denny in the recently
released New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service book
"Kangaroos and other Macropods of New South Wales" (N.S.W.
N.P.&W.L.S., 1982) has shown that examination of historical
records generally indicates reductions and losses of kangaroos
from agricultural areas - not increases as is commonly stated.
Even more
importantly, a recent C.S.I.R.O. aerial survey of kangaroos in
western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia by Drs. J.
Short and G. Grigg published under the title "The Abundance
of Kangaroos in Suboptimal Habitats: Wheat, Intensive Pastoral
and Mallee." (Australian Wildlife Research, 1982, Volume
9 : 221-27) revealed low densities of kangaroos and the authors
concluded:
"The density of grey kangaroos in western Victoria and south-eastern
South Australia is only 15% of that recorded for the pastoral
zone of New South Wales... Such low densities appear to reflect
the effect of intensive land use and the marginal nature for kangaroos
of the remaining areas of natural vegetation."
A study of
the Tasmanian grey forester kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) by Dr.
G. Coulson published in the University of Tasmania book "Exploited
and Endangered Wildlife" (Centre for Environmental Studies,
1981) reaches the same conclusion. Coulson found that pastoral
activity and shooting have reduced the once common and widespread
species to two limited areas containing a total population of
only about 6,000 individuals. Although the species is now endangered
in Tasmania, in 1978 landholders stopped a successful re-introduction
program being operated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Thus kangaroos
are actually directly threatened by intensive agricultural land
use in south-eastern Australia and pest status is a transient
phase at best.
THE LEGAL
STATUS OF KANGAROOS IN VICTORIA.
WILDLIFE
ACT 1975.
It has already
been pointed out that under the Wildlife Act 1975 kangaroos automatically
have the status of Protected Wildlife, however, this can change.
The legal conservation status of a species increases if it is
proclaimed:
(a) "Endangered Wildlife" under Section 41, and this
has basically been done for all
macropod species on the CONCOM endangered species list.
(b) "Notable Wildlife" under Section 42, and this has
basically been done for all
Victorian Potorinae and the brush-tailed rock wallaby Petrogale
penicillata.
The legal
conservation status of a species can decrease if under Section
3 (1) it is proclaimed:
(a) "Unprotected Wildlife"; "Controlled Wildlife";
a "Game Species" or;
(b) "Noxious Wildlife" under the Vermin and Noxious
Weeds Act 1958.
No macropod species has been proclaimed under any of these categories.
In special
cases the minister can waive the protected wildlife status of
kangaroos by giving written permission to individuals:
(a) For scientific research purposes under Section 4.
(b) For wildlife destruction under Section 5.
A few permits are granted under Section 4, but this is a very
limited waiver of the protected wildlife status of kangaroos.
However many permits are granted under Section 5 and large numbers
of kangaroos are involved - about 24,000 in 1982. This has now
become a very large scale waiver of the protected status of kangaroos
and can be construed as a gross misuse of the Victorian Wildlife
Act.
Use of Section
5 is actually the defacto Victorian kangaroo management program
for agricultural lands and forms the legal basis of the Victorian
kangaroo industry.
It must be
emphasized that as the Minister for Conservation must personally
authorize every permit to kill kangaroos under Section 5, he and
he alone bears the full responsibility.
Thus the
kangaroo industry has been allowed to develop in Victoria without
scientific assessment of populations, an environmental effects
statement or public debate. This appalling situation has developed
as a direct result of the actions of previous Ministers for Conservation
under Section 5 of the Act.
Recommendation
2: The Minister takes immediate action to stop abuse of Section
5
of the Wildlife Act 1975 which facilitates the commercialization
of kangaroos and supports the kangaroo industry in Victoria.
ABBATOIR
AND MEAT INSPECTION ACT 1973.
Recently
a kangaroo game meat industry has developed in Victoria. This
appears to be illegal under the Wildlife Act 1975 as kangaroos
have never been proclaimed as "Game Species" under Section
3.
However,
the Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act 1973 includes the following
definition under Section 33 of the provisions for licensing knackeries
and pet food establishments:
"Game includes deer, rabbits, hares, pigs, goats and kangaroos
living in a wild state and
any other animals which the Minister (for Agriculture) may declare
to be 'game' for the purposes of this Act."
This legal loophole appears to be the basis for the new kangaroo
game meat industry.
Recommendation
3: The Minister consult with the Minister for Agriculture and
request that action be taken to have the word 'kangaroos' deleted
from the definition of "Game" under Section 33 of the
Abattoir and Meat Inspection Act 1973 so that it does not facilitate
a kangaroo game meat industry in conflict with the Wildlife Act
1975.
CONSERVATION
STATUS OF KANGAROOS IN VICTORIA.
The Ministry
for Conservation has never directly monitored kangaroo populations.
Traditionally, the number and distribution of permits issued for
kangaroo destruction on agricultural lands have formed the basis
of indirect species monitoring. This was first made clear publicly
by Mr. K. Dempster in an article entitled "Kangaroos: Management
in Victorian Agricultural Areas" published in 1961 (The Journal
of Agriculture, Victoria. January 1961, Volume 59 Part (1): 49-52).
Dr. W. Poole reiterated the policy in his 1977 CONCOM Report "Management
of Kangaroo Harvesting in Australia" referred to above.
In the light
of this situation it is distressing to learn that the Victorian
annual commercial kangaroo kill quotas of 30,000 provided to CONCOM
for 1981 and 1982 were actually based on anticipated applications
for kangaroo destruction permits under Section 5 of the Wildlife
Act for those years. That is, the quotas essentially anticipated
the Ministers direct authorisation for wildlife destruction permits
in advance.
The recent
C.S.I.R.O. aerial survey of kangaroos in western Victoria (discussed
above, Short & Grigg, 1982, Aust. Wildl. Res. 9 : 221-27)
surveyed virtually all the habitat of the red kangaroo (Macropus
rufus) and the western grey kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) in
the state.
This survey
revealed a surprisingly low total number and density of kangaroos
in western Victoria which, as discussed above (see quote) the
authors directly attributed to the effects of intensive land use
and the marginal nature of remnant vegetation. Such an authoritative
and extensive study contradicts the current hysteria sweeping
western Victorian farming communities of plagues of kangaroos
moving from crown lands onto farmlands.
More importantly,
however, the C.S.I.R.O. study questions the whole basis of kangaroo
management and commercialization in Victoria with its keystone
principle of agricultural wildlife destruction permits issued
under Section 5 of the Wildlife Act 1975. It must be emphasized
again that the defacto system of gathering "data" for
assessing kangaroo populations and setting commercial kill "quotas"
in Victoria using permits issued under Section 5 very actively
but covertly involves the Minister.
Recommendation
4: The Minister immediately abolishes the arbitrary Victorian
commercial
kill quota of 30,000 kangaroos and restores the pre-1980 situation
where Victoria refuses to participate in the public relations
exercise of setting kangaroo kill quotas.
CULLING
OF KANGAROOS.
"Culling"
is normally defined as the removal of inferior, old or non-breeding
animals from a population. This practice can be regarded as analogous
to natural selection as the animals removed are non-reproductive.
Hence genuine culling is compatible with preserving the wildlife
status of a species.
Apologists
for the current widespread killing of kangaroos loosely use "culling"
as an explanation of the practice. Similarly propagandists for
the kangaroo industry use "culling" as a justification
for their actions. The need to cull has been uncritically accepted
by the community as a scientific principle and some people wishing
to express a balanced view on kangaroos use the term constantly.
Professional
kangaroo shooters, however, make no attempt to cull less fit animals,
in fact to do so would destroy their markets. Similarly, farmers
taking action against "pests" often select out reproductive
females and young to reduce the reproductive potential of the
population. Such actions contradict a basic principle of wildlife
management and cannot be regarded as "culling".
THE NATIONAL
KANGAROO MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
CONCOM accepted
a "National kangaroo Management Program" submitted by
a working group to control commercial exploitation at its 10th
Meeting in Madang on 1st July 1981 (Resolution 145). Victoria
was represented on the working group and was actively involved
in drawing up the program. Implementation of the program involves
five major steps:
1. Classification of land use and habitat within the range of
the commercially harvested
species. In Victoria this would include the following species:
Red kangaroo Macropus rufus
Eastern grey kangaroo Macropus giganteus
Western grey kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus
Bennett's wallaby Macropus rufogriseus
Swamp wallaby Wallabia bicolor
2. Significance of reserves for commercially harvested kangaroos
by species.
For the Australian mainland reserves are restricted to areas of
public land with
an area greater than 5,000 hectares.
3. Population assessment program.
Regular assessment of population trends including total numbers,
sex and age
ratio trends.
4. Determination of harvesting levels.
Annual commercial quotas to be set based on actual population
size and
population trends, trends in land use, seasonal conditions etc.
5. Management procedures.
These recognise that State and Territory laws control the harvesting
of species
but Commonwealth laws control exports of products. They also require
that all States and Territories have areas where commercial harvesting
is not permitted and that commercial harvesting is strictly controlled
by the relevant fauna authorities.
The strict
controls referred to under "Management Procedures" include
seven mandatory requirements:
(a) All operators and premises in the kangaroo industry are licensed
or registered, their
activities supervised and premises inspected regularly;
(b) no animal is taken without permission of the fauna authority.
In granting
permission, species, number of animals to be taken, area and period
of operation
are specified;
(c) complete details of kangaroos taken are supplied by shooters
and dealers such that
adequate checking against permits may be undertaken; and
(d) kangaroos taken are recorded on an appropriate area basis;
(e) a mandatory tagging system exists which is standardized within
each state;
(f) an import-export system is linked directly to the tags such
that approval from
the state of import is required before an export permit is issued;
(g) a species will not be harvested by a shooter if its density
in a shooters operating
area falls below 1.0 per square kilometre in mainland regions.
As this would be
extraordinarily low in Tasmania, a higher figure is applicable
in that state.
Although
Victoria was involved in drawing up the National Kangaroo Management
Program, no serious effort has been made to meet the seven control
requirements of the Management Procedures. Two of the requirements,
(e) and (g), are blatantly ignored.
Requirement
(e) covers mandatory tagging of harvested kangaroos. The Victorian
Fisheries and Wildlife Division is being severely and openly criticised
by other State and Commonwealth authorities for refusing to tag
kangaroo carcasses. These authorities claim that the situation
has led directly to Victoria becoming the centre for processing
illegally harvested kangaroos.
Requirement
(g) suggests that as a rule of thumb, shooting should cease when
kangaroo densities fall below 1.0 per square kilometre. The C.S.I.R.O.
survey of western Victoria discussed above (Short & Grigg,
1982, Aust. Wildl. Res. 9 : 221-27) covered 100,000 km2 and revealed:
1. The mean kangaroo density was 0.39 kangaroos per km2.
2. Kangaroo densities below 0.01 per km2 for 32% of the area.
3. Kangaroo densities below 1.00 per km2 for 85% of the area.
4. Only one 10,000 km2 block of 10 examined with a density above
1.0 per km2.
This block, centered on the Hattah-Kulkyne region, had a density
of 2.39 kangaroos,
however 40% of the kangaroos counted were in the Hattah-Kulkyne
Park system where
shooting is prohibited and 50% of the block was actually located
in New South Wales.
Thus Victoria
cannot meet most of the requirements of the National Kangaroo
Management Program and commercial shooting should cease.
Recommendation
5: As Victoria cannot meet the requirements of the National Kangaroo
Management Program, the Minister should immediately stop the commercial
harvesting of kangaroos in the State and withdraw from the National
Kangaroo Management Program.
Alternative
to
Recommendation 5: If the commercial harvesting of kangaroos is
to proceed in Victoria,
the Minister should fully implement the conditions, procedures
and requirements of the National Kangaroo Management Program.
THE NATIONAL
KANGAROO KILL QUOTA.
At the 10th
CONCOM meeting on 1st July 1981, the concept of a national kangaroo
kill "Quota" was accepted as part of the National Kangaroo
Management Program. The term "Quota" was defined as:
"The number of the designated species of macropod which may
enter the commercial
trade per calendar year after having been taken by a licensed
shooter in accordance
with an approved State Management Program."
Quota has
become a watershed term, casting an aura of authority and respectability
over the kangaroo industry. CONCOM, however, was told at the 10th
Meeting that in 1979 the acknowledged total Australian kangaroo
harvest was 3,321,275 - 20% above the official national quota
of 2,769,000 set for the year. The CONCOM figures revealed that
in 1979 Tasmania harvested 1,113,628 kangaroos, 271% higher than
the State's official quota of 300,000 for the year.
Further doubt
is cast on the concept of "quotas" when individual States
are examined. For example, in the 1977 CONCOM Report "Management
of Kangaroo Harvesting in Australia" (A.N.P. & W.L.S.,
1977) Dr. W. Poole made the following unequivocal comment about
the South Australian management program (p. 17):
"Regardless of the number (of kangaroos) present (in the
area where commercial
harvesting is permitted) an upper limit of 80,000 for the whole
State is imposed, but
this is not set as a target to be achieved and may not be reached."
By 1981 the South Australian "quota" was 250,000 and
for 1982 the "quota" has been raised to 400,000 - 400%
higher than Dr. Poole's 1977 figure.
The misleading
nature of quotas becomes obvious when the extent of illegal killing
is realized. Bureau of Census and Statistics figures show that
in 1981 the kangaroo industry processed meat and skins from a
minimum of 2,550,000 kangaroos. For that year the national "quota"
was 3,032,000 but the official legal harvest was only 1,594,214.
Thus the official national "quota" covered up and legitimized
an apparent illegal commercial harvest of close to one million
kangaroos in that year. This reinforces Recommendation 4. (above).
THE KANGAROO
INDUSTRY.
The industry
first developed to market skins in the 1950s, then shifted to
large scale production of pet meat in the 1960s. Following amendments
to Regulation 4 of the Commonwealth Exports (Meat) Regulations
in March 1981, an export kangaroo game meat market has recently
been established.
In 1971 the
House of Representatives Report "Conservation and Commercial
Exploitation of Kangaroos" (A.G.P.S., 1971) noted that for
the years 1965-66 to 1970-71, kangaroo meat comprised less than
1% of Australian meat exports by weight. Currently about 1,800,000
kilograms are exported annually which is only about 0.15% by weight
of Australian meat exports. Thus kangaroo meat is not of great
significance as an export.
The discovery
of kangaroo meat in export beef in 1981, however, had a severe
adverse effect on Australia's meat exports. The recently released
"Report of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat
Industry" (Woodward, 1982) documents the events and their
effects. It is fair to say that the major effect of the kangaroo
meat industry on exports in recent times has been highly deleterious.
Justice Woodward
discusses the Victorian Meat Industry in Chapter 38 of the Report
of the Royal Commission. He points out that the meat industry
is economically very important to Victoria and that most Victorian
abattoirs are registered for export. As a consequence, export
meat is of vital importance to the Victorian economy. The 1980-81
kangaroo meat malpractices not only badly affected meat exports,
but also threatened future markets.
The Report
of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry adds
another strong argument for Victoria to immediately abandon the
kangaroo industry, it is small and our export meat markets are
too important to threaten. Cessation of commercial harvesting
in Victoria would be well received by our major overseas meat
customers.
COMMERCIAL
KANGAROO SHOOTING AND CRUELTY.
Professional
kangaroo shooters must continually exploit populations to make
a living and each shooter aims to kill at least 30 kangaroos per
night to make operations economically viable. On this basis, a
full-time shooter kills at least 7,500 kangaroos each year.
In droughts
when kangaroo numbers decline severely and populations are in
their most vulnerable state, commercial shooters must continue
heavy killing or face the prospect of bankruptcy.
Kangaroo
shooters aim to kill and process as many kangaroos as possible
to maximize profits. Some shooters claim to kill up to 250 kangaroos
in a night. In such circumstances, extensive suffering and cruelty
are unavoidable. This is particularly true where orphaned joeys
are involved.
Due to the
decentralized nature of the industry, the aggressive nature of
the shooters and the timid nature of the enforcement agencies,
this cruelty goes largely unchecked. The Victorian R.S.P.C.A.
has only secured one conviction for cruelty during kangaroo killing.
Where prosecutions
are sought, the courts tend to be sympathetic to the accused.
Even where small numbers of kangaroos are involved, cruelty seems
inevitable. For example, in the Victorian case referred to above,
the farmer involved justified killing one wounded kangaroo by
running his car over it and roughly cutting the throat of another
by explaining that he didn't want to waste 38 cents on another
bullet to stop the kangaroo's suffering.
Extensive
and uncontrollable cruelty to kangaroos is another compelling
reason to ban commercial killing of kangaroos.
THE RIGHTS
OF WILDLIFE SPECIES.
The final,
and philosophically the most important, point to be made is that
animals - especially wildlife species - have rights of their own
to exist and flourish independently of human needs.
For this
reason alone we should not regard kangaroos or other wildlife
species as a human resource nor contemplate commercial exploitation
simply because more offspring are born each generation than can
hope to survive.
P.A. Rawlinson
29th September, 1982.
