Should kangaroos be commercially 'harvested'?

Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

Sections in this issue outline (in order)
1 What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.

Dictionary
To activate the in-built dictionary linked to this issue outline, double-click on any word in the body of the text (IE only).

Analysis help
Students and others can read a guide to analysing the language of the news media by clicking the graphic at right.

Age and Australian items
To list all Echo-indexed items on this topic for 2002, click the graphic at right

Sydney Morning Herald items
To list items indexed by the NSW State Library's Infoquick, click the graphic at right

Outline 2002 / 12: Should kangaroos be commercially 'harvested'?

What they said ...

'Australia's wild animals are not things for us to use, like lumps of coal we dig out of the ground, or nuts we gather from trees ... Neither children nor wild animals are a "product" or a "resource" at all'
Australian philosopher, Peter Singer

'Southern Game Meat's brand of kangaroo meat is a succulent, versatile, 98% lean "lite" red game meat which is expertly trimmed, then vacuum packed in pan-ready gourmet cuts'
From a Southern Game Meat promotion of kangaroo meat

The issue at a glance
Through the fist six months of 2002 kangaroo culling and the commercial exploitation of kangaroo meat and leather have been the subject of significant debate.
In January 2002, the federal environment minister, Dr David Kemp, approved an increase in the number of kangaroos made available across Australia for commercial killing. The quota was increased from 5.5 million in 2001 to 6.9 million in 2002.
This move was welcomed by commercial kangaroo cullers and many involved in rearing livestock. A number of conservation groups condemned it.
Then in May 2002 it was announced that at least 15,000 kangaroos, living in a fenced area around the Puckapunyal army base in Victoria, would have to be culled to prevent most of the 80,000 kangaroos in the area dying of starvation over the winter. The cull was condemned as unnecessary.
When some commercial processors of kangaroo meat suggested that the culled animals from Puckapunyal should be processed for their meat and skins, many conservationists claimed they were witnessing a conspiracy to introduce commercial culling into Victoria. Victoria is the only state that currently does not allow the commercial culling of kangaroos. In the event the Victorian government declared that the culled animals would be buried where they had been shot.

Background
Commercial exploitation of kangaroos
Commercially, kangaroos are primarily killed for their hides, which are used to make baseball gloves, sports shoes, soccer balls etcetera; the meat is a by-product not commonly consumed by Australians. Only one third of the kangaroo meat used for human consumption is sold within Australia, the remaining two-thirds is exported.
The use of kangaroo meat for human consumption has been legal in South Australia since 1980. In other States the sale of kangaroo meat other than for pet food was not allowed until 1993 when it was legalised in New South Wales. At the same time, mutual recognition legislation came into being, under which products permitted for sale in one state could not be disallowed in another, making the sale of kangaroo meat in all States possible from that time.
Though traditionally most of the kangaroo meat that was commercially harvested has been used as pet food, over the last ten years it has served a growing export market where it is intended for human consumption.
In 1999 more than 2.6 million kangaroos were killed specifically for export markets,
The industry claims to employ some 4000 people and is worth $200 million annually.
Commercial culling of kangaroos occurs in New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia. Commercial culling is not permitted in Victoria.

Kangaroo culling and the law
Kangaroo management programs are prepared by State Wildlife Authorities and approved by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. The Act is administered by Environment Australia.
The federal Government, advised by Environment Australia, announces the kangaroo cull for each year. The quota is set after state and federal environment authorities make an assessment of current kangaroo populations. In 2001 the quota was set at 5,528, 202. In 2002 it has been set at 6,900,000. Commercial shooters are issued with tags, each one of which entitles them to shoot a kangaroo and have it processed. The quota for a given year determines the number of tags that can be distributed. No kangaroo processing plant is allowed to accept a kangaroo carcass to which a tag has not been attached.
Critics, however, maintain that such a system offers no protection against recreational shooters who are not seeking to have their kills processed and also does not take into account any additional small or spoiled kills that are not brought in for processing.
The 'Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos' regulates the manner in which the culling is conducted. It is a voluntary code with no provision for permits or licences to be suspended if a shooter fails to adhere to the code.

Internet information
The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) supplies detailed information on how the industry is regulated and the manner in which it operates. This information is clear and concise. It is presented from the perspective of a group that promotes the commercial culling of kangaroos.
The KIAA site can be found at http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/industry.html

Southern Game Meat (SGM) promotes and distributes kangaroo meat for human consumption. The group's site gives information on kangaroo species at http://www.sgm.com.au/Species2.htm
They also give information on kangaroo population estimates at http://www.sgm.com.au/Kangaroo%20populations.html
They also give information on commercial 'harvesting' and quotas per species at
http://www.sgm.com.au/Harvesting.html
This site favours the commercial culling of kangaroos. It has a section titled 'Conservation" that argues that culling kangaroos preserves the environment. These arguments can be found at http://www.sgm.com.au/images/conserva.htm
SGM's main page can be found at http://www.sgm.com.au/

Environment Australia is the Department of Environment and Heritage. It responsibilities include the Australian Antarctic Division; the Bureau of Meteorology; and five statutory authorities, including: the Australian Heritage Commission and the Director of National Parks.
It review of the commercial harvesting of kangaroos is cited on KIAA's home page as a valuable link.
An updated version of the review, published in 1999, can be found at http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/index.html
This is a very detailed overview. It is divided into clearly headed chapters that assist the reader in finding his/her way through the document.

On June 4, 2002, the Federal Agriculture Minister, Mr Warren Truss, issued a media release attempting to refute claims by animal welfare lobbyists in the United Kingdom that Australia's kangaroos are harvested inhumanely and unsustainably.
The media release can be found at http://www.affa.gov.au/ministers/truss/releases/02/02081wt.html

VIVA are a British-based animal rights group that has been very successful in dissuading British retailers and consumers from buying kangaroo meat. Their most detailed publication is an article titled 'Under Fire - a report on the killing of kangaroos for meat and skin' by Juliet Gellatley, director of VIVA.
The report can be found at http://savethekangaroo.com/Report/Frame_Report.htm
It is a lengthy document but is very clearly subdivided. Some of its key sections deal with which kangaroos are killed, how many are killed and why they are killed.
It is a detailed series of arguments opposed to the commercial culling of kangaroos.
It can be found at http://savethekangaroo.com/Report/Frame_Report.htm

Mr David Nicholls, a former kangaroo hunter, is now a spokesperson for Save the Kangaroo, a group dedicated to stopping the culling and commercial harvesting of kangaroos. In May 2000 Mr Nicholls produced an article titled 'The Case Against the Commercial "Harvest" of Kangaroos.'
This document can be found at http://www.savethekangaroo.com/International/davidnichollsarticle.htm

Animal Liberation (South Australia) have reproduced on their Internet site Professor Peter Singer's 'The ethics of commercialising wild animals'.
This is a criticism of culling or killing wild animals in which Professor Singer argues that it is wrong to do so because these animals have a capacity to feel pain.
Professor Singer's full argument can be found at http://www.animalliberation.org.au/comethic.html

On March 3, 2002, Channel Nine's 60 Minutes presented a program titled 'Fair Game'. It featured interviews with a kangaroo hunter, Peter Absalom, and animal activist and head of VIVA, Juliet Gellatley.
A full transcript of the program can be found at http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2002_03_03/story_516.asp

Arguments in favour of kangaroos being commercially 'harvested'
1. Kangaroos overpopulate and threaten their environment
In an editorial published on January 9, 2002, The Australian stated, 'The population of the most abundant macropods - the Western Grey, Eastern Grey, Red and Euro/Wallaroo - have risen in the past two decades, despite drought and an annual, legal harvest of 2.5 million to 3.5 million.'
The Herald Sun in an editorial published on January 10, 2002, estimated that there were 'about 50 million [kangaroos and wallabies], or more than two to each Australian.'
Environment Australia estimates the total population of kangaroo species available for commercial harvesting at 58.6 million, up from 48.3 million last year.
Mr John Kelly, executive officer of Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia has stated, 'If we don't control [kangaroo numbers], two things happen: we get widespread land degradation and we also get widespread plant biodiversity loss because the country gets overgrazed.'

2. Kangaroos compete with commercial livestock for grazing land
Southern Game Meats (SGM), a group involved in the commercial exploitation of kangaroos, has claimed, 'In many parts of Australia, kangaroo numbers increase to such high levels that they cause agricultural damage.'
SGM cites, 'Studies by Queensland and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services and the CSIRO (Caughley et al. 1987) [that] confirm graziers' assertions that direct competition between kangaroos and sheep occurs whenever food supplies are short (grass biomass below 300 kg/ha)'.
SGM further claim, 'An intensive grazing trial in western New South Wales has found that the red kangaroos, merino sheep and rabbits are all equally capable of reducing pasture to an ungrazable ruin and causing land degradation as a consequence.
The maximum food intakes of rabbits, kangaroos and sheep during the trial were 68, 62 and 61 g kg-0.75 day-1, respectively. These intakes are similar despite the 30% difference in basal metabolic rates between eutherians and marsupials.'
SGM also maintain, 'In arid zones such as the Western Division of NSW and the sheep rangeland in Western Australia, kangaroo populations have to be managed to lower total grazing pressure, because high densities of kangaroos play a role in land degradation.'

3. Kangaroo meat and other products are currently valuable export commodities
Kangaroos are killed for the commercial market in New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (Qld) and Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA). Out of the 48 species of kangaroos and wallabies in Australia, 5 are killed for the commercial industry: Red Kangaroo, Eastern Grey and Western Grey Kangaroo, the Wallaroo and Whiptail Wallaby.
The Australian kangaroo industry is the largest native animal industry in Australia. Australia exported six million kg of kangaroo meat and 2 million kangaroo skins in 1998. Total kangaroo meat exports in 1997 were just under 4 million kg.
The number of animals killed for the kangaroo industry is driven by consumer demand, much of this coming from overseas.
Figures for 1996 indicate that the kangaroo industry generates an estimated $200 million per year and employs some 4000 people. The most important markets for kangaroo product are pet food, game meat (for human consumption), fur and leather, both in Australia and overseas.
The total value of exported kangaroo product has trebled over the past decade and amounted to just over $39 million for the 1996/97 financial year. Product includes game and pet meat, skins and leather. In 1998, total exports increased by a massive 60% over the previous year and new markets were added: South Africa and the Philippines, with other Eastern European countries taking increased amounts of kangaroo meat.
Skins and leather make up by far the greatest proportion of exported kangaroo produce and have increased in value almost three-fold in the period 1987 to 1996. Skins are used primarily for performance (sport) and fashion shoes, garments and small accessories. In 1996-97 the major importers of skins suitable for these purposes, and for leather were Italy and Japan.

4. Kangaroos could form the basis of an extended meat and leather production industry
The kangaroo meat and leather industry has enormous potential for expansion. As already noted, the total value of exported kangaroo product has trebled over the past decade.
Those who see large potential for growth in the kangaroo industry note the special qualities of the meat that make it desirable in many overseas markets. It is low in fat and has not been treated with growth hormones or other additives.
Health-conscious consumers in Australia and in developed overseas markets are now demanding that meat products be lean and 'clean'. One such market is the European Community, which in 1989 banned the use of hormonal growth substances in meat production.
It has also been claimed that the special characteristics of kangaroo leather make it especially suitable for a range of high value specialist purposes, especially in the manufacture of sporting goods. Leather from wild animals often has a tensile strength comparatively greater than that of traditional livestock and kangaroo leather is recognised as being by weight one of the strongest available leathers. This combination of lightness and strength makes it a potentially very valuable product on the export market.

5. Commercial exploitation is managed in a sustainable manner
The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia has supplied the following information to the public
'A quota set independently of industry by relevant State Conservation Agencies controls the harvest. These quotas are typically 15-20% of the total population as estimated by annual aerial surveys.
They are set according to calculations of sustainable yields to ensure the harvest maintains the population of kangaroos across their existing ranges. Further they are set conservatively to allow a margin for error in population estimates and to accommodate for unseasonable conditions or disease. The history of population growth ... clearly demonstrates their success in achieving these aims.
In terms of kangaroo population the harvest is sustainable on a national basis.'

6. Culling is conducted in a regulated and humane manner
The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia has supplied the following information to the public. This is intended to show both the closely regulated nature of the industry and the humane animal destruction methods its uses.
'Every year the National Parks Authorities in each State conduct surveys of the kangaroo population by flying over large samples of the rangelands at low levels and counting the numbers of kangaroos. After 20 years of such monitoring the techniques have been refined to produce very accurate indicators of total populations and trends in population numbers.
When they know what effect seasonal conditions are having on the population they set a sustainable quota for the number of kangaroos that can be taken in that year. This is typically only 15-20% of the total population.
The Government then issues plastic tags that must be purchased by harvesters and fixed to any kangaroo they take. Only kangaroos with these tags will be processed at the processing plants. This is strictly monitored by Government to ensure that no more kangaroos are taken than is allowed.
All kangaroo harvesters must be licensed by the Government and pass a Government approved course that instructs them in aspects such as the laws controlling kangaroo harvesting, meat hygiene and animal welfare. In addition, their harvest equipment must be approved by a Government inspector to ensure it is of the right standards.'

7. Culling is more humane than either allowing kangaroos to starve or poisoning them
It has been pointed out that if kangaroos were not harvested in the manner they currently are in most Australian states then they would either have to be poisoned or allowed to die of starvation.
Mr Tom Garrett, the development and project officer with the Queensland Macropod and Wild Game Harvesters Association, has claimed, 'Conservationists expressing concern about the increase in the cull should consider the alternative methods of population control. The alternatives are poisoning programs and shooting kangaroos from helicopters.'
This point was made very strongly by those who supported the Victorian cull of kangaroos on the Puckapunyal army base.
This point was made in a Heral Sun editorial published on May 16, 2002. The editorial declared its support for the cull on the basis that 'a humane cull is far preferable to a slow death through starvation.'
Jenny Oakley, a member of Puckapunyal's kangaroo management committee, has made a similar point. 'It is all very well to be warm and fuzzy, but if the cull is stopped, we will be condemning these animals to a slow, horrible death over winter.'

8. Critics of culling are motivated by a misplaced sentimentality
Those who oppose culling and the commercial harvesting of kangaroos have been condemned for allowing sentiment to obscure common sense.
The Australian, in an editorial published on January 9, 2002, made the following point, 'It's time for city slickers to dump the gooeyness ... so we can all recognise that well-managed harvesting of the abundant kangaroo species for meat and sho leather is not only a big money spinner but also a way to minimise willy-nilly slaughtering of plague roo populations.'
The editorial concluded, 'If we care for our national symbol, we should ditch the cute and cuddly syndrome that afflicts our relationship with the kangaroo.'

Arguments against kangaroos being commercially 'harvested'
1. There is not a surplus of kangaroos in Australia
Many opponents of commercial harvesting of kangaroos dispute the kangaroo population figures presented by Environment Australia. Mr Pat O'Brien, the president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, has accused the government of 'fudging the figures'.
Mr O'Brien notes that before 2001 government agencies had estimated a kangaroo population of 25 million. He claims it would be physically impossible for the population to increase to almost 60 million within two years.
Katherine Rogers, vice-president of the NSW Animal Societies Federation, says the apparent increase is the result of an alteration in the formula Environment Australia uses to calculate kangaroo numbers. The correction factor used to extrapolate sample numbers of grey kangaroos to the whole population has been almost doubled. Critics of the cull are concerned that the apparent dramatic rise in kangaroo numbers may exist on paper only.

2. Kangaroos do not threaten the environment
Ex-kangaroo shooter David Nicholls has claimed in his publication The Case Against the Commercial 'Harvest' of Kangaroos, that the kangaroo has evolved to the point where it is highly suited to the Australian environment and so does little damage to that environment. Mr Nicholls claims that kangaroos have far less impact on the environment than introduced species, especially cattle and sheep.
Mr Nicholls states, 'The kangaroo has lived on this continent for tens of thousands of years and has developed characteristics to suit the environment. It requires less water, has soft feet, is on average smaller than sheep, seeks shade in the sun, has no need to grow wool or fat, is efficient in travelling and not limited by artificial boundaries but rather follows its food requirements, which are in most instances, different to that of the introduced animals.'

3. Kangaroos do not compete with commercial livestock for grazing land
Katherine Rogers, vice-president of the NSW Animal Societies Federation has claimed that research by the CSIRO and the University of NSW that kangaroos' impact on agriculture overall is negligible. The research suggests that while there may be a build up of kangaroo numbers in some areas, the resulting problems can be addressed by means other than culling.
A six-year study by Dr Steven McLeod (NSW Agriculture) examined whether red kangaroos affected sheep farming. Opponents of kangaroo culling claim the study found no competition for food between sheep and red kangaroos - even in drought conditions.
Ex-kangaroo shooter David Nicholls has claimed in his publication The Case Against the Commercial 'Harvest' of Kangaroos, 'For kangaroo "culling" to be necessary, scientific method requires that significant, widespread and continual damage to rangelands and infrastructure is actually happening. It is not and no such inkling of evidence exists...'
Critics of kangaroo culls note that it is hard-hoofed animals such as cattle and sheep that damage the land on which they depend for their pasture.

4. Kangaroos do not suit commercial exploitation
Katherine Rogers, vice-president of the NSW Animal Societies Federation, has noted that are slow to grow and produce little meat. National Kangaroo Campaign has noted that female kangaroos first breed in their second or third year, after which they produce a maximum of one offspring per year. Often mortality of pouch young is very high and drought may stop kangaroos breeding altogether. A young kangaroo is dependent on its mother until it is at least 14 months old and so cannot be sold as live young.
Kangaroos produce only two commercial products, meat and skin. Both require the animal to be killed. Sheep on the other hand are productive throughout their lives, producing at least one wool clip a year and meat and skin when they are slaughtered. Further lambs produce 20kg of meat at 3 - 6 months old, kangaroos produce much less meat and are too small to kill before 18 months old.
Only about 10% of a kangaroo is useable for meat - a large red kangaroo of 60kg will only result in 6kg of prime cut meat. The rest will only be sold for pet meat or meat and bone meal.
Katherine Rogers claims that killing 15 per cent of Australia's kangaroos annually would produce just 600 tonnes of meat for human consumption. It is claimed that this is simply not sufficient to sustain a large-scale commercial operation that could either significantly supplement or replace Australia's current production of cattle and sheep.

5. Culling, whether commercial or otherwise, could endanger the survival of kangaroos.
It has been noted that kangaroos are not prolific breeders. 70 percent of joeys die in their first year and kangaroo numbers fall dramatically in time of drought. Research conducted by the University of NSW indicates that in her lifetime a big red kangaroo female will produce only 2.3 young that survive to maturity. At current kill rates this is not enough to sustain the species.
Also of concern is that most kangaroo hunters, especially those who harvest kangaroos commercially, tend to shot a disproportionate number of large males. This is in part because the larger animals have more commercial value. It may also be because of public and conservationists' concerns over the cruel treatment supposedly received by joeys whose mothers are shot. Whatever the motivation of hunters, their preference for shooting males is likely to create an imbalance in kangaroo populations that will also threaten the survival of the species.
Ex-kangaroo shooter David Nicholls has claimed, 'The biggest (alpha) males are continuously and relentlessly hunted down. They may escape being shot this year or the next, but kangaroo shooting will get them sooner or later.'
The late Dr Peter Rawlinson, zoologist at La Trobe University, Melbourne, concluded, 'Kangaroo culling programs, completely disregard the age and sex structure of herds, and for this reason cannot be taken seriously.... Professional hunters shoot mainly large adult males, because these animals earn them the most money.'

6. Culling is cruel and inhumane
Katherine Rogers, vice-president of the NSW Animal Societies Federation, has claimed, 'Shooting animals in the wild at night is a hit-and-miss affair. Inevitably, many kangaroos are not killed outright but die a slow and agonising death. The terrified joeys are bashed against the bullbars, crushed underfoot or flee into the bush to die of starvation.'
Juliet Gellatley, head of VIVA, a British animal welfare group opposed to the culling of kangaroos, has described a cull in the following manner, 'Imagine this. A mother kangaroo, grooming her beautiful joey at night in the vast wild outback, hears the sound of a four-wheel drive and stands transfixed, sensing danger. Searchlights are shone at her. A man takes aim, supposedly to shoot her in the head - but blows a hole in her neck. She falls in pain, helpless to save her joey who retreats into her pouch. But there's no escape. The hunter pulls the joey out of his mother's blood spattered body, tosses him to the ground and stamps on his head. He writhes in agony and is left to die. (Older joeys who frantically hop away when their mothers are shot, have no chance of survival. They die a slow, lonely death from starvation or cold.)
The shot mother does not die instantly. She struggles as the hunter slits her leg open, thrusts a hook through it and hangs her upside down on a truck. She is knifed, gutted, her head, tail and legs tossed aside.'
Critics of the code of practice supposedly governing kangaroo culling claim that shooting is generally not monitored and that even if it were the code does not have provision to penalise those who do not adhere to it.

7. Commercial culling of kangaroos encourages increased quotas and a disregard for sustainability
Critics of commercial harvesting arguing that the industry becomes an end in its own right and that conservation issues, to the extent that they have ever been a factor in kangaroo management, come to be disregarded entirely.
Juliet Gellatley, head of VIVA, a British animal welfare group opposed to the culling of kangaroos, has noted, 'In 1984 the Queensland government added the following statement to its kangaroo management program, "It is important to recognise that while the kangaroo industry was originally a response to the pest problem caused by these animals, it has now come to exist in its own right as the user of a renewable natural resource and thus serves its own interests ...
The Queensland admission that commercial killing is not a tool for management has been extended to other states. The Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australian governments all openly promote ... kangaroo and wallaby as a 'renewable resource' which should be shot regardless of whether the animals are perceived to cause damage or not."'
The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has claimed, 'Kangaroos are killed for profit rather than in response to damage mitigation. The huge increase in the numbers killed since the 1970s has ensured profits but conflicts with the traditional objectives for which the kangaroo industry has gained public tolerance.'
Victoria is now the only Australian state that does not allow the commercial exploitation of kangaroo carcasses. Thus, when the state government decided to allow the culling of kangaroos on Puckapunyal army base, it rejected arguments that the shot animals should be used for their meat and leather.
The premier, Mr Steve Bracks, claimed that the cull was undertaken only to ensure that the kangaroos did not die of starvation. The government appeared to believe that if it allowed the commercial exploitation of the carcasses then its motives for allowing the cull would be open to question.

8. There are other means of regulating kangaroo populations
It has been noted that in some artificially controlled environments where kangaroos are not free to roam and graze then population numbers may outstrip the capacity of the habitat to support them. This is the situation that it is claimed existed at Puckapunyal army base. However, even here, critics of the decision to cull the animals claim that with appropriate management the supposed need to cull could have been avoided.
In the mid 1990s the army decided to allow kangaroos rather than sheep to keep down the grass around Puckapunyal. In 1999 the army built a 1.8 metre electric fence around the base to keep the kangaroos in. By 2002 there were some 80,000 in the 42,000ha military training area.
It has been argued that if the army had developed a proper management plan and had employed biological control mechanisms, such as hormonal implants to reduce the females fertility, then a cull would not have been necessary.
Dr Graeme Coulson of Melbourne University's Zoology Department, has claimed, 'While [fertility control] cannot achieve an immediate reduction in population, in the long-term it should be able to give a level of control that is equivalent to culling.'

Further implications
This is an issue typified to a quite remarkable degree by conflicting claims. On the one hand there are those who claim that Australia has an abundance, if not an overabundance of certain species of kangaroos. On the other there are those who claim that these numbers are being misrepresented and that without appropriate handling the long-term survival of these animals could be in jeopardy. Again, there are those who claim that kangaroos are a pest, damaging the environment and competing for food with cattle and sheep. In response there are those who claim that kangaroos are ideal suited to Australian conditions and do not compete directly with grazing stock. To add to the contradictions there are those who claim that 'culling' will actually improve kangaroos' chances of survival. This is met with the counter-claim that 'culling' is commercially motivated, creates breeding imbalances in populations and could reduce numbers to critically low levels, especially in the face of droughts.
Beneath the claim and counter claim their appear to be fundamentally conflicting views of native fauna in general and kangaroos in particular.
Those who promote commercial culling appear to see kangaroos either as a pest or a commodity. The animal is a pest to the extent that it is believed to take pasture from livestock; it is a commodity to the extent that 'harvesting' and selling its meat and leather is seen as a potentially valuable industry.
Those who oppose commercial 'harvesting', or any culling of kangaroos, appear to attribute a great value to animal life and in particular to native fauna. It is seen to have a special right to continue to exist, so far as is possible, in what is regarded as its natural habitat.
It is difficult to see a compromise being struck between these positions. However, the commercial exploitation view appears to have government approval. Commercial culling quotas have risen steadily since they were began in 1985, even though Queensland is the only state which meets its quota. If kangaroo population management were the issue, it is strange that Environment Australia and other government agencies have not devoted more effort toward controlling kangaroo numbers by other means.

Sources
The Age
9/1/02 page 6 news item by Sophie Douez, 'activists condemn kangaroo cull quota'
18/5/02 page 3 news item by Melissa Fyfe, 'Army in sights over kangaroo cull'
13/1/02 page 3 analysis by John elder, 'From out of the light comes the night's deathly roar'
20/1/02 page 14 letter from Lawrence Pope of the Humane Society for Animal Welfare, 'Victims of "wild west" behaviour'
22/5/02 page 4 news item by Melissa Fyfe and Richard Baker, Push to sell kangaroo meat as cull begins'

The Australian
9/1/02 page 3 news item by Kevin Meade, Stefanie Balogh and Scott Emerson, 'Roo culling a business about to go boom'
9/1/02 page 10 editorial, 'Skippy's days are numbered'
11/1/02 page 9 comment by Katherine Rogers, 'Don't shoot Skippy - except with a camera'
20/5/02 page 4 news item by Barclay Crawford, 'Army takes aim at roos in the ranks'
22/5/02 page 6 news item by Alison Crosweller, 'Culled roos off the menu, Bracks'

The Herald Sun
10/1/02 page 18 editorial, 'Hopping mad'
14/1/02 page 3 news item by Andrew Chapman, 'Anti-roo cull lobby aims at the stars'
16/5/02 page 18 editorial 'A humane option'
17/5/02 page 7 news item by Sarah Hudson, 'Army allowed to cull 15,000 roos'
18/5/02 page 3 news item by sarah Henderson, 'Activists set for roo showdown'
20/5/02 page 2 news item by Sarah Hudson, 'Activists vow to disrupt roo cull'
22/5/02 page 5 news item by Sarah Hudson, 'Great cull begins - army wants roo meat for rations'
23/5/02 page 11 news item by Sarah Hudson, 'Roo rescue fails'