Save the kangaroo

Young injured 'roo, "Majura Malcolm", rescued from Majura site killings, now recovering

RSPCA inspections at Majura Firing Range

I have now received answers to the questions I put to the ACT RSPCA on 19 May 2009 regarding their welfare oversight of the recent killing of 3900 kangaroos at the Majura site by the Department of Defence. Below I list the questions asked and the answers received. Keep in mind this killing program began on Tuesday 5 May and ended by order of the Tribunal on Wednesday 13 May 2009 (my original letter is attached). Also keep in mind that in our meeting with Parliamentary Secretary Mike Kelly on 18 May he said he relied heavily on RSPCA advice that the kangaroos were starving and in the implementation of the Code of Practice for the Humane Destruction of Kangaroos in the ACT.

Question one:

On what days, at what times and for what lengths of time were representatives of the RSPCA in attendance at the site before and during this period (ie the period 5 May 2009 to 13 May 2009)?

Answer:
One visit only, Thursday 24 May, 2007, 1.30pm to 3.30pm

[NB: Actually, 24 May 2009 is a Sunday (but they say they went there in 2007), and as the killing took place between 5 and 13 May 2009 this means they actually visited the site two years ago or if they got the year wrong they went there two weeks after it had finished and a week after I wrote to them! So they either went to Majura two years before the killing or two weeks after it had finished! Either way its just extraordinary].

Question two:

Detail on procedures these representatives used to ensure that: (a) the kangaroos were suffering starvation; and (b) the killing that was carried out under the Defence program was ‘humane’ according to the Animal Welfare Act and the ACT Code of Practice for the Humane ‘Destruction’ of Kangaroos.

Answer:
The purpose of the visit was to discuss the proposed management program and to observe the general state of the grasslands and any kangaroos present at the time. Procedures were limited to general observations. No killing or other interventions with kangaroos were observed.

[NB: part (a) of the question is not answered so we can only conclude there was no issue of starvation of kangaroos witnessed otherwise it would have been mentioned. Their remit extends only to the condition of the kangaroos and not the condition of the grasslands. Part (b) was not observed, so which animal welfare authority provided oversight that the Code of Practice was adhered to?]

Question three:

In relation to your answer to Q2, please outline the following:
(a) Did RSPCA representatives travel across the entirety of this large site, or were inspections restricted to particular areas? If the latter please detail which specific areas were visited for inspection purposes.

(b) What sample size of kangaroos was used to draw conclusions about the entire population?

(c) Were qualified veterinarians in attendance at this time?

(d) Was any video footage or photographs taken before and during the kill program by RSPCA inspectors/ representatives?

(e) What percentage of kangaroos was killed in the first instance by a single ‘head shot’?

(f) What method of killing did your inspectors observe for ‘pouched’ kangaroo joeys? What happened to the at-foot joeys?

(g) How many contractors were used in the killing process and what was their level of expertise/ qualifications for the task?

(h) What types of firearm were observed by your inspectors being used by contractors used to kill the kangaroos?

(i) Was the contracted killing undertaken by night spotlight and rifle shooting of free-ranging animals or were other methods (e.g. rapid-fire weapons, corralling of animals etc). used?

(j) If the kangaroos were confined in any way, how long had they been confined for? What type of fencing was used? Did the kangaroos have access to adequate supplies of food and water? Were the kangaroos exhibiting obvious signs of stress?

(k) Has your organisation been given a schedule of numbers of kangaroos killed during the period including a demographic profile (male/ female adult, juvenile, ‘pouched’ young)?

(l) Is the killing continuing? Are the health and the stress levels of the remaining kangaroos being monitored?

Answer:
No representatives of the RSPCA have been in attendance at the Majura Training Area during the culling period and we do not have any information on the status of the culling program or the monitoring of kangaroos at the site.

Comments:

The two immediate comments from this reply are: (1) Which organisation is monitoring the welfare aspects of the culling of kangaroos as it is clearly not the RSPCA?; (2) Why did Mike Kelly tell Mark Drummond and myself at our meeting with him on 18 May that he relied heavily on RSPCA advice that the kangaroos at Majura were starving?

Prof. Steve Garlick
BA, MCom (Econ), PhD, FAUCEA

Human Population growth impacts on wildlife: The endangered Earless Dragon is being used to justify killing thousands of Eastern Gray kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, but the motive is really developers' profit. As grasslands are turned into building sites, as human population growth is encouraged.. Kangaroos are in the way, as is democracy, so both are being buried. See also:Kangaroo articles

When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

Did the ACT government organize the mass killing of thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos in Belconnen and Majura, near Canberra, in a sudden uncharacteristic and galvanic effort to save the endangered Earless Dragon?

(Illustration of dragon as gun by Carol.)Thousands of Eastern Grey kangaroos have recently been shot and bulldozed into pits in Belconnen and Majura, [1] Australian Capital Territory (ACT), in fatal massive round-ups which have not been seen since early last century. In a torrent of official reports and statements, scientists and politicians have fingered the Eastern Grey Kangaroo for overgrazing rare grasslands and thus threatening their other inhabitants, notably the endangered Earless Dragon.

Who would have thought that the little Earless Dragon had such powerful friends in government, planning, universities and business - even the Canberra International Airport? [2] The Grasslands Earless Dragon doesn't pay taxes and doesn't directly contribute to political fundraisers, but it is often associated with grants and development programs these days.

Were these culls really for the benefit of the Earless Dragon? Or was the Earless Dragon only an excuse for this macropod massacre, in which case, what was the real motive?

Although these planned culls aroused public ire and many questions, formal responses were highly selective. Many questions about the Belconnen cull went unanswered and remain unanswered. When the Majura cull came up on the agenda, the same angry questions received the same infuriating non-responses.

The public and the kangaroos deserve much better.

It was so difficult to make sense of what was happening. Could the whole thing actually be as cruel and stupid as the kangaroo-cull protesters claimed? Or were the protesters really childish people who could not accept the obvious need to put some animals which had ‘bred like rabbits’ out of their misery?

After all, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA) had given its seal of approval. That meant it must be okay, right? Right? (See, for instance: "Questions to Michael Linke, RSPCA re the Majura Massacre of Kangaroos")

Absence of testable theoretical basis for cull

My own preoccupation over the months intervening between the Belconnen and the Majura kills had been to ascertain what population theory was used to arrive at the diagnosis of overpopulation or to assert that there should be only one kangaroo per hectare. My search failed. This question has now become one of whether there was any population theory at all. A theory of how kangaroo populations behave is necessary for any outsider to be able to test the validity of the judgement that the Majura Roos or the Belconnen Roos or any other roos were overpopulating and needed ‘culling’. Saying that there should be one per hectare or that they may die of starvation are remarks which, on their own, do not justify culls.

I was amazed that official reports did not begin with a description of how kangaroo populations were thought to operate, how this theory had been tested and the populations measured. In an effort to find out if any real theory and application had taken place, I attempted to contact officials and scientists involved in kangaroo management programs of one sort or another. No population theory of any kind, whether or not demonstrating lemming-like multiplication tendencies in kangaroos, has yet surfaced as a reasonable basis of the culling of the Belconnen or Majura roos.

What did emerge was that there was an overtly declared perception of conflict between human activities and the presence of kangaroos in grazing and a less overtly acknowledged conflict between land-use intensification in urban development, such as roads and new suburbs, accompanying the promotion of radical human population growth policies in the ACT. (See, for instance, this description of planned expansion and intensification in the area.)

Dr Fletcher’s thesis oddly at odds with Canberra culls

One scientist who was closely associated with the Belconnen cull and the Majura cull, was Don Fletcher. Fletcher is the Senior Ecologist in Research and Monitoring in Parks, Conservation and Lands, Department of Territory and Municipal Services, ACT. His involvement in the Belconnen Roo cull seems to have been officially limited to capturing then releasing female survivors after inserting contraceptives in them. He was one of the writers of the public consultation document leading up to the Majura cull.

He defended these culls and has defended the assessments leading up to the Majura culls in a public consultation document. Yet his own thesis on the “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” (pdf 4.27mb) seemed to discredit claims at the basis of these culls, which were too high population density and a need to manage it down to one kangaroo per hectare. For instance, he wrote on page 237 of his study that :

“The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate. Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover.” [3]

He also wrote that some of the populations he was studying were at the highest density recorded. They ranged between 4.5 and 5.1 kangaroos per hectare. The density in the studies below was expressed in square kilometers. To get density per hectare, divide by 100. [4] Fletcher wrote:

“The kangaroo density estimates reported in Chapter 7 for the three study sites (mean eastern grey kangaroo densities of 450, 480 and 510 km2) are the highest kangaroo densities reported. For comparison, the maximum density of combined red kangaroos and western grey kangaroos in the Kinchega study was less than 56 km2 (Bayliss 1987) and the density of eastern grey kangaroos at Wallaby Creek (Southwell 1987b) was 41 to 50 km2. The next highest kangaroo density outside the vicinity of my study sites appears to be that of Coulson et al. (1999a) for eastern grey kangaroos at Yan Yean Reservoir near Melbourne, which was 220 km2.”

Coulson’s study of kangaroos at 2.2 per ha was published in 1999 as Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”. [5] Graham Coulson’s Yan Yean article is frequently cited by kangaroo population students and he seems to be thought of as the originator of the “one kangaroo per kilometer” ‘rule’.

I did contact Dr Fletcher by email, and he was initially quite friendly, but when I attempted to ask him questions about his thesis responses to my emails ceased, even though I re-sent the emails.

For every assertion a contradictory one remains unanswered

The ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1 (issued prior to the Majura cull) reported conflict between kangaroos and the rural community which uses 23% of the ACT.

“A key issue for rural lessees is the conflict between kangaroo grazing and pasture and fodder crop production.”
(ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee Report No.1. )

It stated as fact anecdotal reports that kangaroo populations ballooned due to man-made pasture improvements.

“There is general consensus that, in other parts of Australia at least, land clearing and swamp drainage to extend areas for introduced pasture, together with the increase in the number of farm dams has improved habitat for Eastern Grey Kangaroos and some other macropods, leading to increased numbers.”

But these anecdotal reports are very selective and easily countered by others, for instance in Dr John Auty’s comprehensive review of original documents forming the history of kangaroo populations from the time of European settlement in Australia. See “Red Plague Grey Plague - Kangaroo [numbers] myths and legends”

Other ACT researchers have also questioned the logistical principle of blaming kangaroos for human pressures on the environment, i.e. why blame kangaroos when we know that the damage is outstandingly done by sheep and cattle? In the Olsen and Low report case cited below the researchers are talking about farming, but they could just as much be talking about new suburbs, i.e. why blame kangaroos when the damage is obviously being done by human population growth, accompanying infrastructure and housing development (roads and suburbs), and human activities (driving cars, growing lawns, shopping, expansion of production, etc.)?

“The discontinuation of damage mitigation as grounds for harvesting is in many ways a more honest approach to kangaroo management given that damage is difficult to monitor, predict and even to prove empirically to be an issue. It also removes the implication that kangaroos are pests.

However, some landholders still perceive damage mitigation to be the main reason for harvesting and continue to call for greater quotas, mainly during the recent years of low rainfall. Arguably, this is a socio-economic problem rather than an ecological one. Certainly, the issue of land degradation will never be redressed by simple reduction in kangaroo numbers when there is no concomitant control of sheep and other introduced herbivore grazing impacts.” Olsen and Low Report. [6]

Is the real conflict over the grasslands between developers and kangaroos rather than kangaroos and earless dragons?

Fletcher, in his thesis, describes Kangaroo density in the ACT as having “increased more rapidly from 1996 to 2000 after sheep and cattle grazing had ended.” [7] Sheep and cattle had been allowed to graze in the threatened grasslands. In some cases they have even been returned to the areas where kangaroos have been ‘euthanazed’ to protect those fragile grasslands.

The question asked here should not be whether the kangaroo density increased to take up pasture vacated by sheep and or cattle. The real question should be: Did such a reduction in sheep and cattle grazing then bring the unfortunate kangaroos into conflict with urban developers over the rezoning of agricultural land for rural use?

In fact, if we drop the non-issue of kangaroo numbers, the relevance of developer-ambition conflicting with retaining grasslands for any indigenous animals becomes obvious.

Kangaroos graze there, which is obviously better than sheep and cattle grazing there, but property developers want to raise far more lucrative crops of humans there by building roads and houses where kangaroos now graze, along with earless dragons.

Unfortunately the government is encouraging developers. Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability, in her report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation, says that the "ACT is fortunate in being in a strong position to be able to advance the protection of lowland native grassland, in particular Natural Temperate Grassland communities and the species it supports," ... BUT... [she adds]:

“Protecting lowland native grassland from development is also a challenge as these areas, being generally flat to gently undulating with no trees, are often prime potential development sites. Much of Canberra’s development is on lands that were once lowland native grassland.” Maxine Cooper Report, p. v.

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” Maxine Cooper Report, pp 74-75,

Now most of the competition with kangaroos is from property development. Stimulating property development is government policy and the means of stimulus is a policy to encourage interstate immigration and natural increase through baby bonuses. This government decision to stimulate human population growth in the ACT and to expand development in the ACT causes pressure on the local kangaroo population and the population of the Earless Dragon in the ACT.

Grave failure of public education and democracy

The commercially-based decisions about human population policy which cause these pressures, however, are kept entirely out of official calculations, negotiations, and rationales pertaining to kangaroo culls and definitions of kangaroo overpopulation in Belconnen and Majura, ACT. This omission means that the public do not have the information to hold the government responsible where it should be held responsible, nor to question the costs of its policies. This represents a grave failure of public education and democracy.

Oddly, Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, mentions and notes the threat to the grasslands from development, yet she does not factor this logically into the reasonableness of blaming and killing kangaroos.

Instead, she uncritically accepts the illogical explanations which she is provided with about kangaroos. She even provides further faulty measures of kangaroo population densities by rate of car-kangaroo collisions.

“The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” [8]

Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and onto the roads to make way for houses.

If, however, commercial development pressure were properly assessed, then its role as the primary population impact on the grasslands and the cause of ACT policies to depopulate kangaroos would become obvious and the government would no longer be able to deflect criticism of overdevelopment and cruelty to kangaroos.

Who profits? When an Earless Dragon is like a smoking gun we should ask who fired the gun.

What of the Earless Dragon in all this? Small and scarce, it is not hard to imagine it fitting into a developer’s pocket-size native-style garden. You could even imagine thirty-something refugees from housing prices in Sydney and Singapore cultivating it in garden pots in new high-rises. Imagine is the key, since who would check up?

Pardon me for being skeptical, but the high profile of the Earless Dragon makes me think of advice to writers about mentioning loaded guns in detective stories. If there is a gun it is there to shoot a victim for a motive. The huge importance suddenly given to the humble Earless Dragon bespeaks a greater purpose than the self-evident worth of its own preservation. Cherchez le maccabe. [Find the cadaver.] The Dragon is the weapon to get rid of the much-loved kangaroos. There can be no argument there, for we hear little else but how the kangaroos are threatening this little animal. Once the kangaroos are gone, the tiny Dragon’s profile will almost certainly sink back to the level which escapes most humans’ notice, unreported by the mainstream press.

Let us ask the ever-useful sociological question here. Who benefits?
Developers and their friends do.

Let justice be done

You wouldn’t think it from listening to politicians, but I have it from a reliable source that, in the ACT, the biggest source of public complaint is cruelty to animals. People should realize that they are not alone in their horror at the cruelty entailed by all this unwanted (except by its few focused beneficiaries) and costly population growth and development. The Earless Dragon has been deployed with the effect of sowing paralysing confusion among nature groups by implying an ungenerous bias for furry kangaroos against ugly dragons.

”To save the beauty, or the beast; that is the question
Eastern grey kangaroos are among the most appealing of mammals (Figure 12), while Ginninderra Lepidium, Grassland Earless Dragons, Coorooboorama Raspy Crickets (Figure 4), Striped legless Lizards, Perunga Grasshoppers (Figure5), Golden Sun Moths (Figure5), and other grassland-dependent plants and animals, are all ugly. Well that may be one opinion, but if so, it is irrelevant. Governments are legally and morally obliged to protect each species. Beauty is not a consideration.” ”A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue, Dept of Territorial and Municipal Services, ACT Government” [ 9]

This has the hallmarks of a straw man argument.

Let the community be heard as it rises to save the grasslands and return them to their rightful management by kangaroos and Earless Dragons. Let due opprobrium be publicly dealt the Growth Lobby by exposing its greed and cowardice in orchestrating the cold-blooded execution of thousands of living, breathing, social creatures for economic and ecological crimes they could never have committed, merely to defend its exceedingly narrow and debt-ridden interests. Let us sheet home to the Growth Lobby and its minions in government the depravity with which they attempt to corrupt our wider society. We are not cruel or injust. We do not support cruelty and injustice.

It seems amazing that Maxine Cooper can support a kangaroo cull when she also writes that the Majura Valley grassland is “arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia” but that it has no long-term planning protection and there is no commitment for any, and that to protect it by defining it as a reserve would

“[…]constrain future development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road [… and] would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans.” [10]

In other words, Maxine Cooper is aware that plans for several new roads and urban expansion are planned for the Majura grasslands and sees that it will be necessary to curb this development to protect the grasslands. [11]

Some of Cooper’s other recommendations (apart from those which promote the culling of kangaroos on illogical grounds) are good. I provide these in the appendix to this article.

Earless Dragon scarcity previously coincided with kangaroo scarcity in ACT

Don Fletcher, in “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” describes how, in the 1940s and 1950s kangaroos actually became rare in the ACT due to competition by European grazing stock. Even when these stock were removed, they remained rare for some time. Salt blocks were put out in the 1960s to attract kangaroos to the Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve, where in 1963 employees went for three months without seeing one.) [12]

Oddly, at the same time as kangaroos were banished from the ACT, the Earless Dragon also became scarce. It couldn’t have been because of too many kangaroos.

“The Grassland Earless Dragon was very common in the ACT up to the 1930s but there are now very few left. This is mainly because there are so few areas of its native grassland habitat remaining. There are now only two main populations known in the ACT; and there is one near Cooma in NSW.” Source: The ACT Conservation Council, http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=34#GED
[13 ]

Note that the Earless Dragon was also found in 2001 in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. [14]

APPENDIX: Maxine Cooper, in her “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009

Recommendation 23: Plan a Majura Valley Reserve to protect Natural Temperate Grassland and its supporting species, particularly the Grassland Earless Dragon, by defining the boundaries of this proposed reserve in the near future.”

“Findings that informed Recommendation 27
During the investigation, the Commissioner’s Office found it difficult to identify the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones that guide land use. To help the community and developers gain information on grassland sites relative to planning zones it is recommended that a map of the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones be published.

Recommendation 27: Publish a map that shows the location of lowland native grassland sites relative to planning zones. This should be readily available through the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the Department of Territory and Municipal Services.” Source: Maxine Cooper, Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, “Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation,” 12 March 2009, pp 73-74

“In terms of biodiversity conservation, the ideal approach is to establish a series of conservation reserves (which may include voluntary schemes) that are of sufficient size and biodiversity to maintain a full range of ecological communities (and hence species) on a long-term basis. It is also desirable for such reserves to be located to enable connectivity for animal movement and other interactions between them.125
The natural connections between grasslands and adjoining woodlands have mostly been severed, but should be retained where they still exist.

Important grassland sites for connectivity between woodland and grassland are at:

• Mount Ainslie Nature Reserve and Campbell Park (MA05)
• ‘Callum Brae’ (JE02)
• Jerrabomberra West Reserve (JE03) and woodland to the west
• Gungaderra Nature Reserve (GU02) and Gungahlin Hill
• Aranda Bushland and Caswell Drive (BE10)
• Majura Valley at the Majura Training Area (MA01).

Important grassland sites for connectivity between grasslands are at:

• Campbell Park (MA05) and Majura West (MA06)
• adjacent grassland on either side of the ACT and New South Wales border via Harman Bonshaw North (JE06) and Harman Bonshaw South (JE07), Jerrabomberra East Reserve (JE05), Woods Lane (JE06), and Queanbeyan Nature Reserve (Letchworth, New SouthWales)
• adjacent grassland between the Canberra International Airport (MA03) the Majura
Training Area (MA01) and ‘Malcolm Vale’ (MA04). Pp. 74-75

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

NOTES

[1] “Majura roo cull targets 6000, Canberra Times, 2 May 2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/majuraroo-cull-targets-6000/1502384.aspx and
Victor Violante, “Roo cull under way: 2000 shot”, Canberra Times, 9/05/2009,
“About 2000 eastern grey kangaroos at the Department of Defence's Majura Training Area have been culled this week, with a further 4000 expected to be shot. Defence confirmed yesterday that culling had begun on Tuesday and contractors doing the cull had already achieved about a third of their target.
Defence spokesman Brigadier Brian Dawson said there were about 9000 eastern grey kangaroos on the Defence-owned site, and they would reduce the population to the ''sustainable level'', a density of one per hectare. This would reduce the population to about 3000.
‘The cull is being conducted humanely by licensed and experienced professional contractors,'' Brigadier Dawson said yesterday.’”
[2] Kangaroos Threaten One Of Australia's Last Remaining Original Grasslands, And Endangered Animals (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/ 080521114923.htm) “The eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) has always been part of the cityscape of Canberra, also known as the "bush capital" of Australia. But even Leipzig-based scientist Dr Marion Höhn and Anett Richter of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) are surprised by the high numbers of them. In her doctoral thesis, Anett Richter is investigating how selected invertebrate species such as ground beetles are affected by landscape fragmentation and habitat alteration in natural grasslands in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Yet during her fieldwork she discovered that there were far fewer of them than expected.
What she found instead were dry grasslands, grazed bare and scarred by the worst drought to hit Australia in a century. Particularly, she was surprised to find large quantities of kangaroo dung, especially in the enclosed military areas: "The results of the fragmentation studies are not yet available. But we assume that there is a relationship on individual sites between the extremely high density of kangaroos and species diversity among the invertebrates – especially in times of severe drought."”

In Peter Robertson & Murray Evans, /files/earless-dragon-management-2009-tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf National Recovery Plan for the Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla, published by the ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, Canberra, 2009: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/43f24013-b621-4ff6-bf09-34da942e8ced/files/tympanocryptis-pinguicolla.pdf the Canberra International Airport is listed as responsible for the management of earless dragon habitat at the airport (p.9); as possibly relatedly suffering economic impacts (p.12); as supporting ongoing studies p.19.

The Airport legal framework for protecting dragon habitat, including land management agreements and conservation directions, is outlined in section A5.1, p.4:

"Development at the Canberra Airport requires approval for Major Development Plans (MDP) (defined under the Airports Act 1996) from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure Minister). The Infrastructure Minister, under Section 160(2)(c) of the EPBC Act, must obtain and consider advice from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Environment Minister). Although an approval may be given by the Infrastructure Minister for a MDP, a permit from the Environment Minister under Section 201 of the EPBC
Act to move, take or kill is required to harm a Grassland Earless Dragon or its habitat. In issuing such a permit the Environment Minister must be satisfied that the action will not have an adverse impact and will contribute significantly to the conservation of the species."

[3] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands,” was on line as a pdf, which is the form I downloaded it as. A copy is preserved now under this article, linked here: /files/Fletcher-kangaroo-thesis.pdf because the pdf is now of limited availability, although copies are still at the University of Canberra Library, reference: http://nla.gov.au/anbd.bib-an42269526. A book by the same title and author has also been published.
[4] There are 100 ha in one square km. So if density varied between 450 and 510 kangs per square km, then that is 4.5 p ha or 5.10 per ha. With 220 per square km 2.2 per ha.
[5] Coulson G, Alviano P, Ramp P, Way S (1999). “The kangaroos of Yan Yean: history of a problem population”, Proc R Soc Vic 111: 121–130.
[6] Penny Olsen and Tim Low, “Situation Analysis Report Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling”, School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200
26 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland 4049, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006
[7] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”, p.40
[8] In Note 11: “The 2007–08 State of the Environment report states that motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos has increased by 38% (from 563 in 2005–06 to 777 in 2006–07). Rangers have advised that they now attend more than 1,000 roadside kangaroo incidents per year in Canberra.” Although Maxine is aware that the building of roads and suburbs is impacting the grasslands, she does not stop to think that these are also impacting the kangaroos through an increasing rate of driving them out of their habitats and on to the roads. Nor does Don Fletcher, in his thesis, where he accepts reports on increasing rates of car collisions with kangaroos in Victoria, also a state with a population growth policy which manifests in rapid population growth and development and rapid depletion of kangaroo habitat.
[9] A Pictorial Guide to the Kangaroo Culling Issue (2006) from the ACT Department of Territorial and Administrative Services.

[10] Maxine Cooper Report, pp. xv-xvi
[11] Maxine Cooper Report, pp.74-75 and pp xv-xvi:

“Development that potentially affects lowland native grassland is either underway or
planned for the ACT (see Section 5). This development has the potential to sever corridor and connectivity between grasslands and woodlands and/or other adjacent habitats. Many of the recommendations presented in this report reinforce the importance of connectivity.” pp 74-75

“Majura Valley’s large, intact lowland native grassland area, which consists of a number of sites under the control of various government agencies, does not have long-term planning protection; it is not in a reserve and there is no commitment for this to occur.

Given the significance of the Majura Valley grassland, arguably one of the largest areas of Natural Temperate Grassland remaining in southeast Australia, the presence of five threatened species including the Grassland Earless Dragon, it is strongly recommended that a commitment be made to create a reserve in this locality.” [xv-xvi]

[…]defining the site of the proposed Majura Valley reserve would constrain future
development options, for example, the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road, it would provide a more certain context for potential developments. It would also ensure that the Natural Temperate Grassland, the Grassland Earless Dragon and other threatened species are not adversely affected through incremental developments, as would be the case if the potential Canberra International Airport northern link road and the potential east-west Kowen road were to be progressed according to existing concept plans. [xv-xvi]

The lands for the proposed reserve could be the subject of a formal conservation agreement between the ACT and Australian governments.”
[12] Don Fletcher, “Population Dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos
in Temperate Grasslands”: “3.3 History of eastern grey kangaroo populations on the sites
All three sites had been grazed commercially for 50 – 150 years until withdrawn in recent decades for conservation or water supply purposes. Each site supported an unmanaged population of eastern grey kangaroos, which was at high density. Kangaroos were scarce in the ACT region in the 1940s and 1950s (Schumack 1977; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996, p. 9). This included the study sites. The first employees in the Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve lived there for three months in 1963 before seeing a kangaroo (Mick McMahon, former employee, personal communication; ACT Kangaroo Advisory Committee 1996) and salt blocks were put out to attract kangaroos in the years before the reserve was opened to the public (ACT government official file: Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve Advisory Committee – 1966).”
[13] Source: The ACT Conservation Council description of the Grassland Earless Dragon - Typanocryptis pinguicolla.
[14] Mt Tyson's Grassland Earless Dragon: not extinct after all
“Chocolate bilbies are facing stiff market competition from the Grassland Earless Dragon in Mount Tyson on Queensland's Darling Downs. GED (as the Grassland Earless Dragon is affectionately known) was thought to be extinct, but was rediscovered in 2001. An adult GED grows to around 12 centimetres long and has spotted spiky skin which makes it a camouflage specialist. […] The Landcare Group has received more than $7,000 from the Australian Government to fund a variety of activities designed to promote awareness of GED and create a conservation management strategy for the species. […] The Group had previously received funding through a State Government Community Natural Resource Awareness Activity Grant, which they used to commission the chocolate mould that was provided to manufacture the chocolate dragons. Support has also been provided by local businesses such as Ergon Energy in Toowoomba and by the Queensland Museum and the University of Queensland Gatton campus.”

The Australian outback town of Mitchell lies in the Western Downs region of southern Queensland on the Warrego Highway just shy of 600 km west of Brisbane on the way to Charleville. Situated on the Maranoa River, the town of Mitchell was named in honour of the 19th Century explorer, and the town emerged as a pastoral town out of the farming of grains, beef and sheep. Tourism has become a strong drawcard to Mitchell and especially to its Great Artesian Spa.

But more recently, Mitchell's fame has been lowered to infamy with it taking on a reputation for becoming the home of the kangaroo slaughter trade.

"You see a lot of utes in Mitchell and the towns just like it that emerge from the roadside only to disppear again as you drive west through southern Queensland on the Warrego Highway. You can tell the ones that are driven by kangaroo shooters. They have racks for guns and long spikes upon which the freshly eviscerated carcasses are placed. One, parked just around the corner, has black steel bullbars with the words "roo raper" cut into them."

Besides the slaughter of Australia's iconic kangaroos for pet meat and indeed export for human consumption in fancy restaurant, it is the sanitary conditions that is shocking and a life threatening time bomb. Following the international biolab standards of Silliker, animal liberation chief, Mark Pearson says "the last time we did swabs here and in Charleville, they were alarmingly high in E.coli."

'The chiller doors aren't locked. When Ben-Ami opens the first, problems are immediately apparent. Bright drips from fresh kills are spotting onto another layer of older, duller, deader blood, which is particularly thick nearest the front. The lip of the door frame is so thick and sticky, the red's turned a dull, dark brown. Hairs are stuck to it.

'The carcasses are packed as tightly as possible. They hang from hooks by their legs, their heads and tails missing,gaping rents where their stomachs once were, leg muscles tensed visibly; severed necks poke into gut cavities; hundreds of paws hang in a grisly reach towards the bloody floor. According to their tags, they're four days dead.

"These are quite young ones, heads cut off quite low," Pearson says, pointing to a nub of spine that's jutting out just above the shoulder. "Most of them are cut too far back." To decapitate in this way requires significantly more effort than using the traditional method, with a slice directly beloiw the jawline. It also makes bad financial sense to remove most of the neck , as harvesters are paid by weight. Proof, claim the activists, that an illegal shot in the jaw or neck has been covered up.

'Pearson points to the floor. "They're bringing in new carcasses and hanging them above the floor, which has blood from old carcasses. Blood is a Petri dish for disease and contamination. This is a major breach of any export abattoir standards." he points to a small grey kangaroo that is caked elbow to paw in blood and dirt. "That's from the evisceration," he says. That's all supposed to fall to the ground. And don't forget, these would have been on the back [of a ute] for four, five, six hours, and it would have been 20 degrees. When you consider this is export meat...Uh-oh..."

Besides Mitchell, the roo rapers store their roo chillers at Charleville, Augathella and Blackall. The practice in outback Queensland is widespread.

To struggling towns in the outback like Mitchell, kangaroo meat is big business. "The Kangaroo Industry Industry Association of Australia says theirs is a business worth $270 million a year that directly employs about 4000 people" many in remote areas."
SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald, Good Weekend, 23rd May 2009.

AusHunt, a website dedicated to hunting in Australia and it's hunters, advocates:
"Kangaroo shooting is a unique job and many people are involved in one way or another in Australia’s kangaroo industry. My advice for the wannabe ‘roo shooter? You’ll need to make a few phone calls to chiller-box operators in various rural centers to evaluate the impact another ‘roo shooter would have there. Then decide on a location. Before doing anything, take a week off work and go out with a qualified, professional ‘roo shooter and see what is actually involved.

Australia’s kangaroo industry is one of the only jobs in the world where a person can legally shoot wild animals fulltime for a living. Kangaroo shooting is a tough life with long hours, and a certain danger element. Depending on weather conditions (wind, rain), phases of the moon and drought, the kangaroo shooter may have a good or bad night. It can be a very irregular income earner.

Many shooters struggle to make money, some make a living, and a few make good profits of A$100,000/annum +. Dedication is the name of the game …. going out night after night and avoiding the temptations of the local pub. The upside is that the shooter is very independent and can lead an exciting outdoors life, totally using his wits, determination and shooting prowess to make money.

Okay, you like what you see and you’ve done your courses. Move to the rural center that you have selected and get a day job there, whether it be pumping gas or whatever. THEN, start looking around for properties on which to shoot and start off by shooting week-ends. See how you go, then move on to fulltime when you know that you can make money. Good luck!"

Kangaroo 'gourmet' recipe.

Australia's Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon MP, has just been handed $26,950,000,000 to unjustifiably escalate Australia's military aggression, at a time when Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan says the world economy is gripped by the worst recession in 50 years. Labor's 2009 Defence White Paper indulges to the extreme, planning for so-called "Defence" (against what?) to receive some $146 billion in additional funding across the life of the White Paper to 2030.

Hypocritically at the same time, Fitzgibbon has rejected spending just $3.5 million to save thousands of Australia's grey kangaroos fenced in on Defence land at Majura training range just outside Canberra. And at a time when Federal MPs have just awarded themselves another pay rise of $4000 pa for 'electoral allowances'. It all stinks like British Parliamentary abuses.

Australia's kangaroos, stressed from people altering their habitat, have been denied their freedom to roam their traditional grazing lands due to it being bulldozed for selfish property development, due to drought, consistent shooting and from uncontrolled bushfires.

Despite wildlife ecologist Dr Dror Ben-Ami telling the review tribunal that the Defence Department has no assessments of any impacts caused by the kangaroos nor that the kangaroos pose any threat to any threatened species on the Majura range, Fitzgibbon has condoned the senseless slaughter of 4000 of a population of 9000 trapped kangaroos be shot in secret, just last Saturday, 9th May 2009. Fitzgibbon approved a similar massacre just on a year ago at the same place - it must be some idea of a sick sport to him!

Fitzgibbon says it is to reduce the kangaroos to 'sustainable levels'. How's the language?

How is this mass killing different to April 1994 when the Hutu militia hacked thousands of Tutsis to death in Rwanda, or July 1995 in Srebrenica when Serb General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then massacred 8,372 men and boys 'of fighting age' (between the ages of twelve and sixty), or in May 2000 when the Sri Lanka Army used banned cluster bombs, multi barrel rocket Launchers killing 2,000 Tamil civilians in the island's north?

Just four days ago, 378 Tamil civilians were killed after Sri Lankan forces fired a massive barrage of artillery shells at Tamil Tiger rebels. Again the UN stands by - bit like how Pope Pius XII stood back while Hilter's Nazis massacred millions of Jews during WWII.

In these human massacres, the killers use propaganda to describe their victims such as 'terrorists', 'militants' and justfity the massacres as 'ethnic cleansing'. In each of the above human massacres, the UN has stood back and watched.

Like these human massacre, thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos, have just as much right to life as humans, yet they are been similarly slaughtered in secret. Defence uses fabricated propaganda like the kangaroos being in “plague proportions” and “hordes” and “pests”, that their “populations have exploded”; that they “compete for pasture”; and the latest ludicrous example; “they are eating endangered species of grass”. All so as to spin the sick aim of "sustainable culling".

It's simply a ecological massacre. It has just been done in secret with approval of Joel Fitzgibbon. How is he any different to Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa?

This tragic massacre deserves to be written into Australia's history as...

...'Fitzgibbon's Massacre'.

Defence land in Canberra was cleared of supposedly 514 "starving" kangaroos last year that were “threatening” native grasslands and other species. The public were persuaded and conned by the pseudo-science of kangaroos as environmental pests, and their "humane" deaths as the best scientifically-concluded solution. The 149 hectare site at Belconnen, with 19,000 tonnes of waste including asbestos, is now planned to be developed for between 1100-1300 new dwellings!

Now, Majura kangaroos are blamed for threatening several rare species of grasses, insects and lizards due to habitat degradation. This is despite the fact that sheep have created a dust-bowl across the fence, and unsound farming practices are being ignored.

‘...there is a good reason to obtain access to carcasses from at least one future cull which is conducted to an acceptable sampling design.’ (D. Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, Wildlife Research and Monitoring, Environment ACT)

Mr Fletcher is NOT a vet, yet he wants carcasses to do his research on, to assess their "health"! Doesn't this sound like Japan's illegal and brutal whaling? Whaling continues under thin disguises, like Mr Fletcher's excuse to "cull" kangaroos!

Why are thousands of kangaroos being needlessly cruelly slaughtered at Majura when the facts and figures being used by Defence to justify this action are flawed?

The "threatened species" and native grasses are not at threat from kangaroos! No other science has come to the conclusion that Dr Maxine Cooper has come up with! The REAL threats are urban sprawl, heavy grazing from livestock, invasive weeds, rabbits etc. NOT kangaroos! They have evolved and co-existed together for millions of years and the grazing "pressure" from kangaroos is only about 1/3 of that of a sheep.

There are reliable reports of sheep grazing over the fence and have made a dust-bowl there. Why aren't agricultural impacts being assessed! This pseudo-science is about using "science" to justify a pre-determined outcome - the slaughter of kangaroos that are not wanted in the "Bush Capital".

These animals are on our Coat of Arms, and part of our heritage, part of our biodiversity and landscape. Making them a "threat" is purely pseudo-science so that a confused public is lulled and quietened by a "humane" solution!

Three kangaroos per hectare are quite sustainable, as evident! They are NOT STARVING but in peak condition! One kangaroo per hectare is just a way of ensuring that they die off, due to predation, loss of gene pool, human attacks and traffic.

Defence has not produced data to prove there are 9000 "starving" kangaroos, and what their REAL MOTIVES are! Housing estates are due to be built where the last kangaroo massacre took place at Belconnen! Now they will shoot 6000 roos instead of 3000 of these so-called 'environmental pests'!

There is no way of a "humane cull"! They will be running in fear, and bones will be broken, joeys will panic and be lost from their mothers, and the panic and fear and stress from these animals is well known!

If Defence were telling the truth they would let some trustworthy, independent, non-government-funded wildlife vets, entomologists, botanists and other experts visit to see for themselves, but they won’t because they think they can get away with lies and breaking the law by starting the massacre early.

There needs to be investment in wildlife corridors and crossings over roads. Kangaroos could be quite a tourist attraction, a draw-card for Canberra. This massacre is a scandal for Australia and our “management” of wildlife. We have such an abysmal record of animal treatment in Australia, and this killing field will just add to condemnation world-wide!

See also: Protesters slam 'sneaky' kangaroo cull in ABC online of 9 May 09.
Roo cull under way: 2000 shot in Canberra Times of 5 May 09.

ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, is ACT's inaugural full-time Commissioner in the role, yet what relevant environmental qualifications and experience does the incumbent have, or indeed lack, to be officially condemning another local indigenous popluation of Australia's iconic marsupials, our kangaroos, to slaughter for pet food?
The Environment Commissioner's own website lists her formal qualifications in the areas of Environmental Planning, Environmental Design and Environmental Science. All these 'environmentally' friendly prefixes sound impressive, until one realises that each of these areas of academic study are not fauna focused, but indeed all about human-centric utilisation of the natural environment for the benefit of humans. That is, these qualifications are all about maximising the convenience of the environment for humans. A wolf in charge of the kangaroos?

Such qualifications offer no insight into the survival and habitat needs of Australian wildlife. "According to ACT's inaugural Environment Commissioner, kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site. Where's the bloody independent zoological evidence, who would attest to this view under the test of peer scrutiny?

Now if our roo-shooting redneck commissioner had a more relevant Bachelor of Science in Zoology from say the University of Melbourne, she may be of a contrary mindest, less aligned to human planning needs and monetary gains more empathetic to ecological needs of nativa fauna. The introductory paragraph for the University of Melbourne it Honours degree in Zoology online instills the followng focus:

"How animals live and why they live that way are questions addressed by zoologists. Most of the Australian fauna are poorly understood or not even formally named, yet informed management and resource use of Australia's flora, fauna and habitats depend upon zoological knowledge. We need to catalogue what species exist and how they survive in their natural environments. This requires knowledge of their physiology, breeding and reproductive systems, ecology, evolution and behaviour."
[SOURCE: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/areas/SZOOL.html]

Maxine Cooper, where are your qualifications in zoology and in the conservation and Australian wildlife to entitle you to officially condemn thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos to slaughter for cat an dog food?

Can you guarantee the Australian public that none of these kangaroos is to be minced for cat and dog food?

The standard setting for the job prerequisites for the ACT's Environment Commissioner are woeful and clearly not in the best interests of the target subject - our natural wildlife. What were they thinking by employing a planner in environmental management?

In May 2008 a total of 514 healthy kangaroos were exterminated on the former Belconnen Naval Transmission Station by the Department of Defence.

RSPCA-ACT chief Michael Linke insisted that the kangaroos were ‘starving’ even though eye-witness accounts and photographic evidence showed no starving kangaroos. They do after all, eat dry wild grasses, and have been doing so for the last 40 million years.

According to Dr Maxine Cooper, Environment Commissioner, the kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site (Ginninderra Peppercress, Striped Legless Lizard and Golden Sun Moth), even though the EPBC Act lists threats other than kangaroos (such as weeds, feral animals, domestic dogs and cats, land clearing, agriculture, slashing, inappropriate burning, livestock, rabbits, rock removal and vehicles).

Yet cows were grazing in the adjacent paddock, apparently not a threat to the species listed (as if moths and lizards recognise fences!).

So if both excuses of starvation and threat to endangered species were untrue, what was the real reason for the Belconnen massacre last May?

#Housing Scandal" id="Housing Scandal">Housing Scandal

In The Canberra Times dated 18th March, 2008 an article titled Roo Cull Land Contaminated raised the issue of soil contamination in relation to part of Belconnen being released by Defence for housing. Soil remediation would be necessary.

Then again on 27th September, 2008 The Canberra Times printed another article, by Rosslyn Beeby, titled Revealed: Toxic Waste Dump which showed serious lead, heavy metals, asbestos, carcinogenic dioxin and PCB contamination in the soil and groundwater, even down to Lake Ginninderra.

The scandal was that ACT government wanted to build housing on contaminated land. As if remediation could possibly clean it up!

Defence has been aware of the problem since 1985. A 1991 report by Snowy Mountains Engineering Corp. called for a scientific assessment of the potential for pollutants to build up in native wildlife or people with frequent access to the site. The reports warn that

''no information is to be given out regarding the nature of the potential contaminants on the site''

for public information at community consultations and ministerial briefings about the clean-up.

The ACT has previously denied it plans to develop the land for low-cost housing. But ACT Planning Authority documents obtained by The Canberra Times indicate the Government has at some stage considered the site in plans to expand the suburb of Lawson.

The Defence reports recommend excavating 6000 cubic metres in some areas, to a depth of at least 6m from a former rubbish dump at the site, as well as removing 900 sq/m of topsoil from grassland where federally- protected plant and insect species occur. Just where are they going to put this toxic soil?

Local groundwater is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), toxins that accumulate in the environment and have been linked to cancer, liver damage and immune and reproductive disorders. Petroleum hydrocarbons are leaking into soils and groundwater from disused underground fuel tanks that still ''contain product'' in several areas. Does Defence think that local residents won’t connect the dots?

The land was assessed by Defence contractors for use as low-density housing and recreational. A Queanbeyan Wildcare spokesperson said that

if Defence had approved the proposal to move the kangaroos instead of killing them, health checks on the kangaroos would have revealed pollutants. In the past, blind sheep have been found grazing at Belconnen.

#The Majura Connection" id="The Majura Connection">The Majura Connection

There is a shortage of land in Canberra to develop housing and commercial estates. Developers are leaning on Defence to release more land, as at Belconnen. Could Majura be next? And is Majura Training Area contaminated too? We do know that the 514 contaminated Belconnen kangaroos were buried at Majura in a large pit. I can't help but wonder if Defence could be moving the toxic Belconnen soil to Majura.

The Hon. Mike Kelly, Secretary for Defence is gearing up to kill aproximately 6,000 kangaroos on Majura Training Area, which is 8,000 acres.

Nobody really knows how many kangaroos there are but the estimate is less than two kangaroos per acre (hardly excessive) yet Kelly claims that the kangaroos are starving and degrading the rare grasslands.

Where is the scientific evidence of starvation or degradation of grasses? There isn’t any, as with Belconnen.

Across the fence, a hobby sheep farm illustrates accepted ACT land management practices. This land is now a dust bowl (see picture next).

Yet the kangaroos at Majura are blamed for degrading rare grasslands. Which looks like it could support life and threatened grassland? Certainly not the clapped- out sheep farm.

Furthermore, according to locals, there is a plague of rabbits at Majura. Why is Defence more worried about kangaroos than rabbits who do far more damage to grasslands?

How ironic that our national icon is blamed for damage to the environment actually created by humans, especially when you consider that kangaroos benefit the land in many ways. They eat dry grass that livestock won’t eat, grass that ignites easily in bush fires. By eating native grasses (that livestock don’t eat) they regenerate the grasses, helping many other species to survive. Their long claws aerate the soil allowing soil ecosystems to thrive, whereas livestock compact the soil and cause deserts. The more kangaroos, the healthier the ecosystem!

#Other Reasons?" id="Other Reasons?">Other Reasons?

The D.O.D. plans to turn Majura into an internationally-significant night manoeuvres firing range. But they could never justify killing thousands of protected native animals to upgrade their night training.

While high-tech night responsive equipment may be sensitive to night ground movement from kangaroos, they could use ultrasonic devices such as Roo Guard (endorsed by the Qld. Grain Growers’ Association) to keep them away from those areas and create corridors to surrounding acres with water and proper fencing.

Why does the government protect special interests (i.e. developers) but make no effort to protect native Australian land or animals? Kangaroos are not the problem. Human activity and livestock grazing are.

The government may not care about kangaroos, but many people around the world do. As people learn about what is becoming known as Australia's Dirty Secret, they're not only outraged, but are choosing not to visit Australia and spend their tourism dollars.

#What can you do?" id="What can you do?">What can you do?

Please write to:-

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister, Parliament House
CANBERRA, ACT, 2600
www.pm.gov.au/contact/index.cfm

Martin Ferguson, Minister for Tourism
Parliament House, Suite M1 23
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
www.alp.org.au/people/vic/ferguson_martin.php

Visit:
www.australiansocietyforkangaroos.com
www.stopkangarookilling.org

See also: "Majura demonstration in Canberra" on www.canadianvoiceforanimals.org, "Another Slaughter of kangaroos planned" of 14 Apr 09 on Quaker Concern for Animals web site.

Through a FOI report obtained from the Department of Climate Change and Environment, it is clear that the calculation of kangaroo numbers in kangaroo management zones as they pertain to the FATE program in Mudgee, Molong, Hunter and Central West NSW is a total sham.

On page 2 of the report it says:-

"In order to set harvest quotas with the intention of ensuring sustainability, it is necessary to have reasonably accurate and precise estimates of the sizes of kangaroo populations proposed to be harvested.”

However, on examining the report closer, it is patently clear that no such accurate estimate has been obtained. How can such a killing plan be sustainable or viable and how can cruelty to animals be avoided when the data collection method used is a simple point-in-time head-count using short-run helicopter surveillance with human observation which takes no account of the following important factors:-

1. age or size (young at-foot joeys and very old would be unviable for the kangaroo industry)
2. physical condition
3. gender (which seriously impacts 'sustainability')
4. the changing characteristics over time of the land (water, grass, shelter etc.) on which the kangaroos reside
5. how kangaroos move across the landscape throughout the day and the seasons in response to many factors (wind, heat, cold, feeding time, resting time, breeding time, fires, water supply, human presence, predator presence etc).

Assuming that a single head count at a single point in time in a number of set locations will accurately account for any of these variables and therefore how kangaroos spread across the available landscape at other points in time is a indeed junk 'science'.

Therefore, conclusions from this analysis about kangaroo ‘abundance’, density or any increase or decline in numbers over time are completely useless. Obviously shooters will target the largest kangaroos leaving a surplus of orphaned young who may not be able to survive without their mothers and have no idea how to survive in a mob without male guidance. In such cases young males often try to mate with immature females or females not in oestrus.

There is a very high probability that the figures are overblown due to not allowing for the above important factors and contributes to the myth that kangaroos are in 'plague proportions' and need to be 'culled' by the kangaroo industry before they become too much of a 'pest' to farmers. The public is already brainwashed to believe that there are 'milllions out there' when in fact kangaroos are on track to extinction (see report by Australian Society for Kangaroos at http://www.stopkangarookilling.org ).

The report accepts very high levels of coefficient variation (obviously determined by the cost of helicopter hire and the size of the zone studied). The coefficient of variation for the Central Tablelands, is more than 30% (95% confidence interval) suggesting that in the Central Tablelands the estimated kangaroo numbers are somewhere between 210,100 and 860,000 - a difference of 650,000! How can the kangaroo industry expect a sustainable yield when estimated numbers are so inaccurate?

Finally, since the whole point of the FATE program is to help farmers by removing 'pest' kangaroos and reward them financially, why would areas where kangaroos are not a problem be surveyed? Shouldn't they be excluding land that is not cultivated? Why should the remaining uncultivated land be accepted as an area in which humans could consider the kangaroo a ‘problem’?

In the Upper Hunter zone, 43% of the total zone land area is cultivated, meaning that on 57% of the land kangaroos are not a problem so therefore no killing should be necessary. Additionally, they should only be surveying cultivated sections of land in the analysis, which would obviously diminish density numbers considerably.

Due to all the above, it is impossible for conclusions about past trends in kangaroo numbers nor future trends to be made from the report either towards ‘abundance’ or ‘quasi extinction’.

On the issue of animal cruelty, the myth that a single gunshot to the head of a healthy kangaroo is humane needs to be rejected. Even in the unlikely possibility that a kangaroo shooter will be 100% accurate every single time, what actually happens in practice is more than enough to remind us that kangaroo shooting is inherently cruel.

When its mother is ‘humanely’ shot, the orphaned ‘pouched’ joey is ripped from its mother’s pouch, decapitated, stomped on, or swung repeatedly against the nearest hard object until its head is crushed and its fragile limbs fractured. The ‘at-heel’ offspring of the dead mother is deprived of its mother’s company, milk, warmth and protection and forced to flee and fend for itself against predators such as foxes, marauding dogs and even pythons.

Not all shot kangaroos die instantly. Some flee, in great panic, and die a lingering and excruciatingly painful death which could take months. Some have part of their face blown off which leads to gangrene or starvation from being unable to eat. Pain, exertion and anxiety create physiological and biochemical changes in metabolism leading to lactic acidosis and muscle damage, including to the heart muscle, the release of myoglobin, renal failure, tissue hypoxia, paralysis, and progressive damage to the liver, adrenal gland, brain and lymphatic system. No fair-minded human with an ounce of compassion could possibly believe there is anything ‘humane’ in any of this killing.

In conclusion, the data and analysis of kangaroo numbers that the DECC relies on to implement commercial kangaroo killing programs in zones around the State are so flawed as to be totally useless in determining SUSTAINABILITY, industry VIABILITY and animal CRUELTY and should be halted immediately before irreversible damage to kangaroo populations occurs.

Additionally, a more scientific appreciation of the dynamics and value of the kangaroo in the landscape and ecosystems needs to be incorporated into management of kangaroos away from the archaic pest model which has never been scientifically proven and is strictly anecdotal.

Please write to:

The Hon Ms Carmel Tebbutt MP
Minister for Climate Change and the Environment
Level 30
Governor Macquarie Tower,
1 Farrer Place,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
(p) (02) 9228 4866
(f) (02) 9228 4855
(e) dp.office[AT]tebbutt.minister.nsw.gov.au

Article republished with permission from Kangaroos Myths and Realities, ISBN 0 9686178 1 3, 2004, available from www.awpc.org.au/ which also contains articles by Professor Peter Singer, Barrister Cliff Papayanni, Dr. Daniel Ramp, Dr. Dror Ben Ami, Dr. John Auty and Kakkib Li’dthia Warrawee’a along with co-editors Maryland Wilson and Dr. David Croft.
Also published as Auty, J., "Red plague grey plague: the kangaroo myths and legends", Australian Mammalogy
26: 33-36, 2004.

Red plague Grey plague

The Kangaroo: Myths and legends
By Dr John Auty

The conventional wisdom is that kangaroo (Macropus spp.) numbers have increased in Australia since European settlement due to cessation of predation by Aborigines and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), as well as increased availability of water. The historical record shows that at the time of first European contact the kangaroo was numerous and abundant over the continent and Tasmania. The Aborigines were at best poor hunters of kangaroos and quickly incorporated the Europeans’ large hounds into their hunting methodologies. C. l. dingo was a solitary hunter and scavenger. Its lack of capability as a hunter of kangaroos was recognised by the Aborigines who appear to have not used C. l. dingo for this purpose unlike their early use of the Europeans’ kangaroo dogs. Water supplies were largely unimproved by 1860 when Australia de-pastured domestic livestock equivalent to 110 million kangaroos. In 1880 when therewere 240 million kangaroo-equivalents, water supplies had been upgraded only in closely settled areas. It seems probable that at the time of settlement kangaroo numbers exceeded the present population at least threefold.

EXAMINATION of the historical record reveals that kangaroos (Macropus spp.) were widespread in their distribution at the time of European exploration and settlement of Australia and are usually described as being numerous or abundant. This paper reports on a review of records from the 18th and 19th centuries and provides information about the possible numbers of kangaroos during the early years of European exploration and settlement. A previous study by Denny (1980) has shown that kangaroo numbers in New South Wales (NSW) were not as low as commonly assumed. This paper confirms these conclusions.

John White, Chief Surgeon at Sydney (NSW) in 1788 saw kangaroos during local exploratory journeys (White 1962: 129). By 1794 John Macarthur was taking 300 pounds of kangaroo meat a week using one hunter and six greyhounds at Parramatta

Illustration: Adult and juvenile eastern grey kangaroos seen in abundance by early explorers. (Photo: Bill Corn)

(Onslow 1973: 43). At Sutton Forest to the west of Sydney James Macarthur saw kangaroos in immense flocks in 1821 (Onslow 1973: 371). In Van Diemens Land (Tasmania) kangaroos were harvested for human consumption as early as 1804. The usual means was to hunt them with suitable sight hounds, apparently crosses of the greyhound. Kangaroos were in “abundance” (Historical Records of Australia 1922a: 380). By 1808 hunting pressure had driven the kangaroo into the interior. Hunting and loss of habitat reduced populations to such an extent that in Tasmania the kangaroo was in danger of extinction by 1850. In 1814 G.W. Evans was sent by Governor Macquarie to open a road over the Blue Mountains in NSW. Hoping to victual partly on kangaroos he took hounds. Although he saw numerous kangaroos in his passage the dogs, after suffering wounds, became shy. (Historical Records of Australia 1921: 167). Three years later Evans saw numerous kangaroos on the Lachlan (Historical Records of Australia 1921: 614).

During 1829-1832 a series of explorations were made in the south-west of Western Australia. The explorers recorded “numerous herds of kangaroos” (Cross 1833: 67), “kangaroos and birds in abundance” (Cross 1833: 93), “kangaroos and birds in great abundance” (Cross 1833: 96), “heard kangaroos in the night and found numerous traces of them” (Cross 1833: 113), “saw many large kangaroos on the plain” (Cross 1833: 125), “great numbers of kangaroos” (Cross 1833: 143), “plenty of kangaroos” (Cross 1833: 188), “numerous impressions of the feet of natives and kangaroos” (Cross 1833: 190), “kangaroos ...seemed abundant traces in all places” (Cross 1833: 198), “plenty of kangaroos here without going out of our tract we saw at least twenty” (Cross 1833: 216), “The kangaroo must be very numerous in the interior if we may judge from the quantity seen walking in a straight line” (Cross 1833: 221). In the far north of Western Australia in 1838 George Grey recorded that of all the animals present “kangaroos are alone numerous” (Grey 1841: 239).

In eastern Australia, Mitchell in his journals repeatedly refers to the presence of kangaroos and indeed in three chapter headings records them as “numerous”. He describes the taking of kangaroos by his dogs: on one occasion one dog pulled down four in a short time (Mitchell 1839: 322). After entering Victoria he describes many kangaroos as present about the Loddon River. This was confirmed by the overlander Hawdon (Hawdon 1952: 19) who in 1837 saw kangaroos in “great numbers”. After entering South Australia Hawdon recorded kangaroos as being in “great abundance” and hunted by Europeans for the Adelaide market (Hawdon 1952: 60). At Point Lincoln further to the west Captain Phillip Mitchell recorded in 1836 that kangaroos were in “numerous flocks” (Light 1984: 118).

In 1839-41 Chief Protector Robinson made traverses to the west and north of Melbourne (Victoria). Although he argued that the Aborigines had just cause to kill sheep because they had lost access to their gathering and hunting grounds, he repeatedly reported sightings and taking of kangaroos. Almost every European had a pack of hounds, Robinson noted that “kangaroo dogs are at all the stations” and “there is not a station home or out station but the men and the master have dogs to hunt kangaroos” (Robinson 1980: 111). Hall amongst the first of the overlanders into Garriwerd (the Grampians) in 1841 found kangaroos “abounded” in the forests of the Grampians and that “kangaroo soup, in its abundance, ceased to have any attraction for us” (Bride 1969: 268). Rose an early settler in the Grampians, recorded the kangaroo were still “plentiful at the foot of the mountains” (Bride 1969: 321). Writing of conditions in the 1850s, H.W. Wheelwright hunter, naturalist, and writer knew of no kangaroo-ground within “30 miles” (48.3 km) west of Melbourne. At the same period Wheelwright estimated that his and another party shot at least 2000 kangaroos within a short distance to the south-east of Melbourne (Wheelwright 1979: 19).

Illustration: The core of the eastern grey kangaroo mob are freely associating female relatives and their offspring. (Photo: Jan Alderhoven))

In south-eastern Queensland Hodgson an early squatter, wrote in 1846 “it is a pitiable fact that in places where I have seen herds of 300 there is not one to be seen now” (Hodgson 1846: 159). Leichhardt took kangaroo dogs on his trip to Port Essington and wrote about the selection of such dogs. The dog “Spring” the only one to survive almost to the end was the means of obtaining “the greatest part of our game” (Leichhardt 1847: 437). He saw flocks of kangaroos on the Burdekin (Leichhardt 1847: 227), and estimated by their tracks on the watershed that they were numerous (Leichhardt 1847: 260). Hovenden Hely a member of Leichhardt’s party to the Victoria
(Barcoo) River recorded “loads” and “hundreds of kangaroos” (Sprod 1989: 271-2).

The Gregorys, explorers and surveyors, made sightings of kangaroos during their traverses to the north-east of Perth (Gregory and Gregory 1884: 9). Sturt is the only one of the early explorers whose records I have examined who did not record sightings. It is to be noted that he spent long periods in incised river beds and he was on the Darling during drought. He sums up: the great kangaroo did not extend beyond latitude 28: whilst the red kangaroo did not extend beyond the Murray and its plains (Sturt 1849). Giles whilst searching for the Finke in the north of South Australia saw “numerous kangaroos” (Giles 1889: 40).

Although most modem commentators write only in general terms about populations of kangaroos at first settlement Tim Flannery (1994) in the Future eaters is more specific. He reveals a lack of knowledge of both the journals of the explorers and the history (timescale) of geographical and faunal exploration. On the basis of a slight review Flannery concludes: “Clearly, red kangaroos were much rarer early last century than they are today” (Flannery 1994: 214). He relies for this finding on his interpretation of the writings of Mitchell, Gould, and Krefft. Thomas Mitchell as shown above described kangaroos as “numerous” over a large area of his travels. When commenting on the lower Darling he makes the point that the absence of kangaroos (and emus Dromaius novaehollandiae) is “sufficient proof of the barrenness of the adjacent country” (Mitchell 1839: 291). The remarks of Gould in the 1840s are irrelevant since at that time the range of the red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) was hardly known, whilst Krefft’s statement of 1862 can be similarly ignored. To sustain his conclusion Flannery must find other authorities.

Predation by Aborigines

Although there is no doubt that Aborigines successfully hunted kangaroos the effects of this hunting by the small Aboriginal population could have had little effect on the large numbers of kangaroos. Grey lists six methods of hunting kangaroos (Grey 1841: 268-274) to which we can add a seventh, hunting with dogs which Grey, and Grey alone and somewhat ambiguously, describes in the Kimberley. Later authors describe two principal methods of hunting: the surround on burnt ground, and the stalk. Both needed large inputs of energy and the former required a substantial gathering of hunters. The burning of scrub and grasslands may in fact have encouraged the growth of kangaroo populations.

That the Aborigine was not wholly satisfied with his own methods of hunting the kangaroo is shown by his eagerness to take up European methods both on the continent and in Tasmania. On the Tasmanian Aborigine Jorgen Jorgenson is worth recording at length (Plomley 1991: 52)

“the natives had no dogs for hunting ... but when they succeeded in stealing dogs ... or otherwise obtained them, the chase became neither so laborious nor so uncertain. They displayed great natural capacity in the training of their dogs, and they treated them more like children than brutes. They were taught not to bark ... in pursuit of game”.

Reporting from Westemport in Port Phillip (Victoria) in 1826, Hovell states the Aborigines “look strong and healthy and live well by means of very fine kangaroo dogs, for which they have plenty of employment, which not only provide them with food but raiment also” (Historical Records of Australia, 1922b: 856. Mitchell (Mitchell 1839: 204) on the Bogan (NSW?) in 1835 comments on the attempt of the Aborigines to steal his dogs after observing their ability to kill kangaroos. He later presented a greyhound pup to the “king” (Mitchell 1839: 241). A year later Darwin on a visit to Bathurst (NSW) wrote that the Aborigines are “always anxious to borrow the dogs from the farmhouses to hunt kangaroos, the kangaroo ... has become scarce ... the English greyhound has been highly destructive” (Darwin 1889: 321). Inland from Shark Bay in Western Australia Gregory in 1858 saw “several large white dogs which were evidently of Australian breed” (Gregory 1884: 42). Whether these were used to hunt kangaroos is unknown.

Illustration: A group of antilopine wallaroos, the large kangaroos seen by explorers in northern Australia. (Photo: David B Croft)

Protector Thomas of the Victorian Aborigines Protectorate in 1839 was “much struck” by the care with which the Aborigines at Momington in Victoria cared for their guns (Historical Records of Victoria 1983: 538). Their camp looked like a “butcher shop” (Historical Records of Victoria 1983: 541).

Predation by dingoes

Aborigines at the time of first contact had domesticated dingoes (Canis lupus dingo). Mitchell (1839: 347) wrote, “The Australian natives evince great humanity in their behaviour to these dogs. In the interior, we saw few natives who were not followed by some of these animals, although they did not appear to make much use of them”. They were not used in hunting of kangaroos. The reason is not difficult to find. The kangaroo was a redoubtable fighter. The first European experience of this ability to fight off dogs was a report by White (1962: 147) on a mauling given to a large Newfoundland.

Lieutenant Bradley reported that a kangaroo had taken to the water and tore the pursuing dog so much that the kangaroo had to be despatched. Henderson (1832: 138) records the ability of the large kangaroo species to inflict severe wounds. Dogs which had been bested by a kangaroo were reluctant to be set on thereafter unless in superior numbers. Such reports are commonplace in the literature.

Although the historical record appears to demonstrate that the dingo was the universal dog of Australia, Grey recognised another breed in the Kimberley and described it as follows:

“The new species of dog differs totally from the dingo. ... Its colour is the same as that of the Australian dog in parts having a blackish tinge. The muzzle is narrow, long, thin, and tapers much, resembling that of a greyhound, whilst in general form it approaches the English lurcher. ... I cannot state that I ever saw one wild, or unless in the vicinity of natives” (Grey 1841: 239-40). “The dogs they use in hunting I have already stated to be of a kind unknown in other parts of Australia, and they were never seen wild by us” (Grey 1841:252).

Clearly C. I. dingo might cut off immature, weak, or injured kangaroos but as predators they were outclassed by the ability of the larger macropods to defend themselves. It has been suggested that recent work on canine predation of kangaroos shows that at the present day C. l. dingo is a successful predator of kangaroos (Newsome and Coman 1989: 998). The historical record is unambiguous. I have sighted no observations of the hunting of kangaroos by C. I. dingo. On the other hand the failure of the Aborigines to utilise C. l. dingo to hunt kangaroos whilst quickly availing themselves of the demonstrated ability of the Europeans’ hounds to successfully pull down kangaroos, suggests that Aborigines had little regard for C. I. dingo’s ability as a kangaroo hunter.

Kangaroo numbers at the time of European settlement

Having demonstrated that kangaroos were abundant at the time of European settlement and that Aborigines and C. I. dingo were at best of little consequence as predators, I now address the question of kangaroo numbers in 1788. My base is the capacity of native pasture and scrublands to support introduced herbivores, cattle, sheep, and horses. I allow ten sheep-equivalents to each large stock, and 0.7 sheep to each kangaroo. In 1860 based on the population of introduced herbivores (Chisholm 1963) the kangaroo-equivalent is approximately 110 million, in 1880 240 million. In 1860 settlement had not extended into western Queensland, central and northern Australia, and the central and northern regions of Western Australia (Chisholm 1963) . Water conservation was in its infancy, as was cropping and pasture improvement (Chisholm 1963). In 1880 settlement had barely commenced in western Queensland, central, northern, and north western Australia, some surface water storage and wells had been established, but the artesian and sub-artesian basins were untapped, and pasture improvement and cropping as
known today had hardly commenced (Chisholm 1963).

Conclusions

At first European contact, kangaroos were widely distributed in large numbers over the continent and Tasmania. The Aborigines’ hunting methods were wasteful of energy when compared with those based on hounds as used by the Europeans. Because of this superiority European techniques were quickly copied by the Indigenes. C. l. dingo was a poor predator on kangaroos and for this reason was not used by Aborigines in hunting them. The numbers of kangaroos present in Australia at the time of European settlement can be estimated on the basis of the number of introduced herbivores supported on unimproved pasture and browse.

The population was probably of the order of one to two hundred million.

Illustration: Red kangaroos aggregate in loose groups where water runs on to sustain green grasses and herbs. (Photo: David B Croft)

Dear friends of Earth,

Australians everywhere are devastated at the terrible bush fires in Victoria and flooding in Qld. An estimated one million native animals have been incinerated in the infernos, although the true total could be many times more. The surviving animals will be left to starve or die from injuries, heat stroke or dehydration. We have seen the photos of desperate koalas stopping cyclists on the road for a drink from their water bottles, clambering over fences and drinking from people's swimming pools, dog bowls and watering cans. Koalas nation-wide will now number considerably less than 100,000 thanks to these fires and floods.

With the worst record in the world of wildlife extinctions, having driven 40% of our native animals extinct in a mere 220 years, isn't it time, once and for all, that the Australian government stopped allowing the killing of our so called 'protected' native animals, most of whom are suffering from the following major threats:

1. drought
2. climate change
3. habitat destruction from developers and livestock farmers
4. bushfires
5. flooding
6. farmer kills
7. illegal kills
8. roadkill
9. illegal wildlife trade
10. diseases caused by man
11. polluted air, soil and water
12. the 'bush tucker' trade
13. sports hunters
14. government 'culls'

We call on the government of Australia to protect our native animals in the following ways:-

a) Impose an immediate moratorium on the killing of ALL native animal species (except where it's in the best interest of an animal such as in the case of wounding/disease).

b) Immediately revoke all licences for nuisance killing or sports killing.

c) Increase the penalty for deliberately killing a native animal and to include jail time.

d) Mandate that motor vehicles be installed with 'Shu-Roo' type sonic devices to alert wildlife of the approach of vehicles on country roads.

e) For all development proposals to include appropriate wildlife corridors for the species who live there.

f) To increase expenditure for wildlife corridors to be created where native roadkill consistently occurs.

g) Offer substantial subsidies for livestock farmers to transition from cattle and sheep farming operations to grain and vegetable operations, which do not require constant deforestation to create more grazing lands. Much of the dryness of our country, and therefore propensity to bush fires, is due to livestock farming since cattle and sheep pull out the roots of grasses then compact the soil and cause soil erosion, deserts, droughts and climate change. It's time to move away from this destructive industry and help people transition to a plant-based diet for the sake of our nation.

h) Close down the 'bush tucker' trade completely, especially the kangaroo meat and leather industry. Kangaroo populations have plummeted up to 70% nationwide due to drought and excess killing by the commercial kangaroo industry. The average age of commercially killed kangaroos is only 2-3 years, barely reproductive age. More than 50% of kangaroos killed are females - a recipe for extinction and certainly not 'sustainable.' (see www.stopkangarookilling.org )

i) Create an information sheet highlighting the many ways that kangaroos help prevent bushfires such as by eating the dry grasses that ignite easily in bush fires and by regenerating native grasses by eating the seeds and then migrating to other areas before depositing them into the soil via their stool. Kangaroos are beneficial to our ecosystem in many ways. They do not compact the soil and they help plant many seeds by creating indentations in the soil for seeds to fall into. They also need very little water to drink.

j) Use the media to dispel the widely-held myths that kangaroos are in 'plague proportions' and 'pests.' Since there are more than 5 times as many sheep as there are kangaroos and more cows than kangaroos and about the same number of people, it is hardly fair to call refer to kangaroos as in 'plagues' or 'abundant' and to use that to justify killing them. Also there is no scientific study proving that kangaroos compete with sheep or wheat fields.

k) Develop new methods for people to live in harmony with wildlife so there is no need for governments to 'cull' them. Perhaps where absolutely necessary initiate contraceptive measures or skilfully relocate them.

l) Above all, cease referring to native animals as 'resources to be sustainably harvested.' There is no more sustainability in killing our wildlife, especially our iconic animals.

m) Immediately disband the FATE program established by UNSW which pays farmers to allow shooters to come onto their property and kill native animals for a profit.

n) Tourists come from all over the world to see our amazing native animals and are disappointed to only find them in zoos. Since our tourism industry is suffering financially, creating eco-tourism (possibly employing former shooters and/or local farmers to become tourist guides) would do a lot to stimulate our economy and also go far in re-establishing our current abysmal international reputation for eating our national emblems and for the fact that we conduct the largest slaughter of wildlife on the planet.

We are running out of time. Without biodiversity, we will all perish!

May Australia not be the first country in the world to have all its native animals extinct during this period of the 6th Mass Extinction of all species.

The real reason why Defence killed 514 kangaroos at Belconnen last May had nothing to do with endangered species. If allowed to live longer, kangaroos might have shown symptoms like the blind sheep previously at Belconnen. And now the truth is out!

How can groundwater and soil be heavily contaminated with dioxins, heavy metals, lead, asbestos, hydrocarbons and PCBs on the BNTS site but not the surrounding areas where people already live?

It’s already in the groundwater, the soil and therefore blowing in the wind. Exactly where are they planning to remove the contamination to? How can everything be rosy after the cleanup since it’s already in Ginninderra Lake and the aquifers?

And what about the damage to the endangered grassland species that the government was oh so worried about the kangaroos 'threatening' when they scoop out 900 square metres of soil?

What about the remaining experimental 100 kangaroos at Belconnen? Will they be secretly disposed of while this 'clean-up' happens?

What’s more important – human health, endangered species, native wildlife, future generations, a clean environment, integrity or making money off yet another housing estate?

There's a lot being covered up in Canberra these days ...

See also: "Defence kiboshes Belconnen grassland refuge plan" of 30 Sep 08, "Defence to clean up Belconnen site" of 30 Sep 08, Remediation of the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station" of 22 Oct 08, "Belconnen Kangaroo massacre" of 30 May 08.

Help us get to 10,000 signatures!

Here is my letter to Professor Michael Archer, no reply forthcoming.

Dear Prof. Archer

I have read about the FATE program on your website and would like to share some comments.

Firstly, how can you consider this program to be helping conservation of kangaroos? How can 'sustainable use' apply to kangaroos when:

1. Their numbers have dropped up to 70% across the nation from 2001-2006 due to the drought and excess kangaroo 'culling' [1]?

2. Up to 80% females are killed. According to population experts killing 50% females is unsustainable [2]?

3. The report by The Australian Society for Kangaroos (a compilation of shocking facts from various government departments) clearly shows how kangaroos are on track to extinction. The fact that the biggest kangaroos have been shot out is proven by the fact that the average age of commercially killed kangaroos these days is only 2-3 years (21 kg) i.e. barely at reproductive age and just out of the pouch[3].

4. According to the Murray Darling Report, if kangaroos are killed in areas where there are less than 5 kangaroos per sq. km, that is a recipe for extinction. Yet kangaroos are being commercially killed in areas where there are less than 1 kangaroo per sq. km. [4].

Kangaroos are approaching, if not at, the tipping point beyond which kangaroos become extinct.

The FATE program will guarantee extinction for kangaroos. Entrusting the conservation of Australia's national icon to the very people who hate kangaroos the most (i.e. farmers) is like asking foxes to guard the proverbial hen house.

White man's ecological footprint in Australia has been way too large - we are going through the 6th mass extinction of all species due to human beings' total lack of consideration for and understanding of the ecosystem in which we live. Australian government policy has already allowed 40% of native species to become extinct in a mere 220 years since the early settlers arrived. When are we going to wake up and stop this war against wildlife before it's too late?

It's time to end the ridiculous policy of making wildlife pay their way with their lives by becoming renewable resources to plunder for profit till none remain. If we don't become proper custodians of the land, we will lose our most precious treasure - our unique native animals. Why would people come to Australia and spend $85 billion tourist dollars each year just to go to shopping malls, theme parks and zoos when those attractions exist in any other country? What makes Australia special is our iconic wildlife, in the wild and in hordes!

Professor Archer, with all due respect, do you really want to go down in history as the man who drove the last nail in the kangaroos' coffin? Kangaroos are the second most recognised international tourist symbol. We proudly bear them on our emblem and QANTAS jets fly all over the world with the image of a kangaroo on their tails. What will happen when they become extinct? Shall we replace the kangaroo with a cow? Leaving an extinct animal on our national emblem would be too painful a reminder of our collective stupidity. Perhaps now would be a good time to start contemplating what other animal should replace the kangaroo that is as popular and well known? Perhaps cane toads, foxes or how about concrete?

On Australia Day, today, we should be considering how to protect our national treasures, not eating them and feeding them to our dogs. The FATE program encouraging 'harvesting' of our native animals is a mistake of mammoth proportions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Menkit Prince

1. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/population/index.html
2. H.H.Lavery 'The Keepers'
3. www.stopkangarookilling.org
4. AAT Submission, General Administration Division, NSW District Registry, No. 535 of 2007 (exhibit 13).
Re Murray Darling Report on quasi extinction - www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/nswaatappeal2008.html

HELP US GET TO 10,000 SIGNATURES - TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

As the nation reels at the massive loss of life, human and animal, property and bushland, due to fires and extreme temperatures, isn't it time to reflect on how we are responsible?

While it is convenient to blame 'climate change', greenies and arsonists, let's look at how each one of us created this.

First of all livestock farming - we cut down trees which shade the land so it's not so dry in order to grow grass for cattle and sheep. These hard-hoofed animals compact the soil while pulling up the roots, eventually leaving the legacy of deserts. So then more trees have to be felled to grow more grass for livestock, and so the cycle goes until we get to the point where now over 60% of our original forests have been felled, mainly for livestock and of course human habitat. And we wonder why it's hotter and drier?

Secondly, we wipe out kangaroos without thinking about how beneficial they are for the ecosystem. Did you know that kangaroos eat dry grasses and thereby prevent bush fires? And they help to regenerate native grasses which would otherwise go extinct? Kangaroos are being driven to the tipping point of extinction ( www.stopkangarookilling.org ) along with the rest of our native animals. We think we ‘own’ the earth and it’s animals and are unable to live in harmony with the original inhabitants.

And now we are paying the price. If you want a future for the planet, become vegan. It's the single most important thing you can do. Go to http://www.goveg.com/order.asp and request a free starter vegetarian kit.

What has happened to us that we have to get children to express our deepest values and concerns because we have been conditioned to repress them for political reasons?
(Pic:Gavin Jennings, Victorian Min Environment)


Part of an illustration by Frank P. Mahony from the famous Australian story, Dot and the Kangaroo by Ethel C Pedley, published in 1920.

Dot and the Kangaroo (see at nla.gov.au/nla.aus-f2688>), written in the early 20th century, is still a very popular book, because most people like the idea of being friends with wild animals, of living near the bush, of children being able to move freely and safely.
Order from http://chloeandjoey.com/Order.html

Unfortunately Australian and State governments are exceptions to this rule; most of our politicians really don't seem to care what happens to our wildlife, or citizens and their children. They are hypnotised by big business and big development, focused on trying to endlessly grow the economy, even though this is causing distress to people as well as wildlife. They are so engrossed in this recipe which they have been sold for political success, that they have lost their hearts.

The same thing is in danger of happening to the rest of the people in Australia.

Have you noticed how adult citizens in our society are persuaded to suppress feelings of disgust, anger and indignation at the horrific suffering human expansion causes to wildlife?
A sign that we adults truly feel that we are not allowed to express and to act upon our real feelings is that, more and more, we get children to do the expressing for us.

The Whittlesea Leader Newspaper, Victoria, has published a #When:00:52:22Z">story about the reaction of local children to the plight of yet more kangaroos displaced by yet another huge shopping centre.

To see the serious, pained, faces of children, burdened with a job which should never be theirs, but has fallen to them because they are not yet completely defeated, should bring our society to its senses and stop the ... um... senseless expansion.

But will it?

What does it take to stop senseless growth and cruel destruction of sentient wildlife?
Australian wildlife rescuers have devoted a site to trying to help the kangaroos in question at Mill Park, but so far the bloody mess continues on the roads as the shopping centre goes ahead.

Perhaps if children marched on parliament and stood in front of the bulldozers that daily destroy habitat, life and beauty, in favour of plastic and concrete money-traps called shopping centres, the madness might stop. Or would the government also turn its head there and look the other way if the machinery for shopping centres simply mowed children down in the same way it does kangaroos, wombats, parrots, possums, devils, wallabies, quolls, snakes and trees.

The children in question have sent letters to Environment Minister Gavin Jennings, begging him not to kill the stranded kangaroos.

Most students have asked for the kangaroos to be moved somewhere safe, because they fear the animals will be shot if they remain in their habitat, which is due to be built over.

Unfortunately you cannot stuff a mob of kangaroos into a high-rise apartment and order in food from a restaurant. Kangaroos actually require many square kilometers of habitat and connection with other roos in other places to survive and prosper. If a shopping centre is constructed on the area they live in, then somewhere similar will have to be found for them. Perhaps the children are not aware that shopping centres, roads and houses are being built all over the place, not just in Epping. So, finding a new home for kangaroos is going to be really hard, but it must be done. Moving them is also very difficult; they are not used to wheeled transport and wonder what on earth is going to happen to them and do themselves injuries trying to escape.

The solution is obviously to stop constructing shopping centres. Perhaps this is what the children should have asked the Government to do.

Here are the letters the children wrote:

I have seen a kangaroo hit by a car and I am not happy about it. Please save the kangaroos near Westfield by moving them somewhere.
Matthew, Epping

I want you to put the kangaroos to live in the zoo. People do not look for signs and they do not pay attention to the signs and drive fast and kill kangaroos.
Casey, Epping

I don't want the kangaroos to die near the shopping centre.
I am angry.
Please move them to a safe place.
Lucas, South Morang

I am concerned about all of the kangaroos near the shopping centre with no habitat.
I am very angry about this.
I would like them relocated to a different area. There is a big, great, free and open area on Phillip Island.
I would like you to save the kangaroos in South Morang, struggling and fighting for food.
Casey, Epping

I am very angry about the way they have built Westfield over the top of the kangaroos’ habitat.
I would love the kangaroos to be moved to another area that has no plans for building any shopping centres, cinemas etc.
How would you like it if you were a kangaroo and you were shot?
Lauren, Epping

The kangaroos near Westfield don’t look happy. Please send them to a big island or somewhere safe.
I would like an answer please.
Conor, Epping

I am upset about the kangaroos because I am so angry about them being trapped.
If I was a kangaroo, I would want to stay in my habitat.
Please put the kangaroos somewhere safe.
Allen, Epping

If you were a kangaroo, would you like to be shot? That’s unfair to kangaroos and other animals. I want them moved to another area because they are getting stranded.
Yours sincerely (means I’m being honest).
Vincent, South Morang

I am sad that kangaroos are dying.
If people laugh I say “what if you were a kangaroo”? Would you like to be shot? I would like the kangaroos to be safe.
Brendan, Epping

I don't want kangaroos to die near Westfield.
I am sad. It is a good solution to relocate the kangaroos.
Shaizaad, Epping

I feel really angry because kangaroos have been dying because people have been building on their habitat.
Dena, Epping

I want the kangaroos in South Morang not to get shot by people. I want them relocated.
I am sad.
Brock, Epping

I feel bad because you’re killing the kangaroos and I don’t want you to kill the kangaroos.
Please stop killing the kangaroos.
Stefan, Epping

I am sad because I don’t want the kangaroos at Westfield.
I think we should put them somewhere safe.
Brooke, Epping

The kangaroos are dying because they have been hit by a car, guns, dogs and some animals.
I am angry.
Please put them in a better habitat.
Rachael, Epping

I feel really angry and I think that should not be happening.
How would you like it if I came around destroying your home?
So please relocate them.
Makayla, Epping

I saw a baby kangaroo on the road.
Please keep the kangaroos safe.
Jackson, Australia

I feel really bad about what’s happening to the kangaroos near Westfield.
If you were one, would you like it?
Probably not. Please, do not shoot the kangaroos. Please, I want them to live a happy life.
Please relocate them somewhere else.
Shannon, Epping

Keep the kangaroos safe and not shot.
Youssef, Epping

I am sad because I’ve been watching the kangaroos being run over and I don’t like it.
It’s not fair. I want them moved somewhere else.
How would you feel if you were a kangaroo and you got shot?
I love kangaroos.
Lence, Epping

I’m so angry about the kangaroos dying.
Please save the kangaroos in South Morang because if you were a kangaroo, would you like to be shot? I would think not. I would like you to send them somewhere else.
Tayla, Epping

I’m very angry at the people who take the kangaroos’ home away.
Imagine if you were a kangaroo and you had no food and drinks?
Don’t forget about your children.
They might want to see the kangaroos.
I’m really angry and sad.
It feels like I’m going to cry.
I want you to save the kangaroos in the world and I want the kangaroos in South Morang saved.
Chloe, Epping

Minister Environment and Climate Change Honourable Gavin Jennings MP Dear Mr Jennings, I am concerned about the high rate of land clearing and developments in our northern growth corridor. NO provision has been made for wildlife, especially kangaroos. Plenty Gorge could have been extended to join into a wildlife corridor, but this was not done. Previously I wrote to Mr Alan Webster and he reassured me at the time that something would be done. However it was never put in writing. Plenty Gorge is surrounded by housing estates, and the growth continues. Surely this is the reason we are losing so many indigenous species in Australia - because they are not provided for. Surely growth could have been planned to include non-humans? There is a wonderful opportunity to save a large piece of land in Mill Park, next to Bunnings. There are mature gum trees, shrubs and wildlife. More than ever we have to recognise that we need green wedges, conservation corridors as buffers against further biodiversity losses and climate change. We can't just keep developing and clearing land and wonder why we have drought, heat and climate change! I have campaigned some of the public in Mill Park and a great majority do not want to see the kangaroos killed. They are being squeezed out of existence. These animals and others are the victims of planning failures. These gentle animals are stranded between busy roads and shopping centres and every day they are in danger of having little food and being killed by traffic. Kangaroos and wildlife are part of Victoria. The "management" so far has been killings! I refuse to accept this form of "management"! It is killing and a failure to address the needs of animals that have a right to exist in our State. We can't just kill off anything that moves to put in more people and more sterility. The are part of our environment, our ecosystem, and we are morally and ethically obliged to protect them from constant economic decisions that say "kill them". There are reports that kangaroos may become extinct with increases in temperatures. Koalas are also on the way out! I implore you to do something to PROTECT the habitat and the kangaroos and other remnant wildlife in Mill Park and South Morang. Please make sure they provided with a right -of-way corridor (over roads) to connect with National and State parks. Our wonderful kangaroos are vilified as worth nothing until dead and out of sight! Everything wonderful about Australia is disappearing because we don't value our heritage. Our governments now are only interested in the economy! Please do something to save the land and kangaroos in Mill Park and South Morang. Thank you Vivienne Ortega(Australian Wildlife Protection Council - vice president)

This data analysis and new findings are just out. Please check out the brilliant article which accompanies the video. The news is truly shocking and we cannot wait for governments to do anything because so far they have obfuscated the data or used it incompetently. There are reasons to believe that various State departments may actually want to get rid of kangaroos.

Like the Tas Devil, Kangaroos, once common, are suddenly vulnerable.

Within 12 years a common species, the Tasmanian Devil, has become so severely endangered that there are captive breeding programs in its own territory. Devils have developed a communicable cancer because their genetic density is so incredibly low and it is wiping them out all along the Western part of Tasmania.

The same thing could easily happen to the isolated and fragmented populations of kangaroos of which we see remnants fending off starvation along roadsides. Or the remaining isolated populations could simply fail to breed successfully enough to survive.

Please sign the petition but please send this article on in Australia and overseas. The whole community needs to place pressure on Australian politicians everywhere. Go and watch the video for a truly enlightening five minutes. It is not too gruesome; it is very informative.

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/kangaroo-extinction.html

Murray Darling Report on Kangaroo density

After investigating the state government data pertaining to kangaroo densities across the Kangaroo Management Zones, it has been found that kangaroos are now 'quasi extinct' across most of NSW, South Australia and Queensland. 'Quasi extinction' refers to population densities of less than five kangaroos per square kilometre and has been defined by the Murray Darling Report as 'the nominal value of kangaroo densities taken to be the effective loss of the species.'

The Murray Darling Report is a document published by the Murray Darling Commission, written by government and independent scientists and titled 'Kangaroo Options in the Murray Darling Basin.' The report says, 'Strategies that produce average densities of less than five kangaroos per square kilometre would result in minimum densities of less than two kangaroos per square kilometre and could be considered a threat to species conservation.'

Further interpretation of state government data from New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia shows kangaroo densities that are now less than two kangaroos per square kilometre across more than 50% of these states. The Murray Darling Report states, 'Critical minimum densities of less than two kangaroos per square kilometre would generally be considered at risk of extinction.'

In regard to the future of the kangaroo industry, the Murray Darling Report said, 'Reduction of kangaroo densities to less than five per square kilometre over large areas would result in the demise of the kangaroo industry.'

Great decline in size of kangaroos

Government statistics also show that the average weight of kangaroos killed in South Australia and Queensland is only 21 kilograms i.e. juveniles aged about two years, the males of whom are not even at reproductive age and females, most barely at breeding age. In South Australia 50% of kangaroos killed are females in half the state which by itself puts kangaroos at risk of extinction.

With one third of Australian native mammals having been driven to extinction since the first settlers arrived just over 200 years ago, we cannot afford to imperil the existence of kangaroos who are the world's second most recognised tourist symbol. An $85 billion tourist industry is not worth sacrificing for a $200 million kangaroo industry. Kangaroos are worth far more alive than dead. Blinded by short-term profits, certain industries could be responsible for the extinction of our kangaroos and in fact that is already starting to happen.

It is imperative that we implement a moratorium on commercial and non-commercial killing of kangaroos immediately for the sake of our country, our tourist industry, our economy, our environment, our reputation, and most importantly, our world-famous icon.

For more information go to http://www.stopkangarookilling.org http://www.australiansocietyforkangaroos.com or watch video at http://www.animal-lib.org.au/campaigns/kangaroo-campaign.htm

Petition:

To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned shows we have grave fears for the future existence of kangaroos in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, and the fact that these state governments have already set commercial kill quotas at 12-20% of the population for the next four years.

According to scientific predictions, this could result in large-scale and irreversible extinctions of Red Kangaroos, Eastern and Western Grey Kangaroos, Wallaroos and Euros in the wild within a matter of a few years.

Considering this and other factors weighing against kangaroos' survival such as ongoing drought, climate change and large-scale habitat destruction, your urgent attention to the imminent extinction of our national icon is now needed.

Kangaroos should not be equated with herded production animals. They are free-living wild animals, many with young in pouch or at foot, highly susceptible to stress. As a result, current commercial kangaroo killing practice is commensurate with causing extreme cruelty to adults and infants, the outcome of which is to bring great shame on Australia as a society. It is estimated that three million joeys have died inhumanely as a result of this cruelty over the last 10 years.

Your petitioners ask that the Senate impose an moratorium on the commercial and non-commercial slaughter of Red Kangaroos, Grey Kangaroos, Wallaroos and Euros in New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia.

We ask that this remain in place until such time as a full independent enquiry is carried out determining the extinction risk to kangaroo populations in light of new information that has come to the public's attention and the results of such inquiry be presented to Parliament.

PETITION: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/kangaroo-extinction.html

See also: Open letter to Gavin Jennings regarding the stranded kangaroos at Mill Park and South Morang of 24 Oct 08

That two socially immature males would cruelly bash and kick unconscious a kangaroo whilst capturing the sickening spectacle on video in an apparent attempt to impress their social peers should hardly come as a surprise in a country which, unlike South Africa which nurtures and celebrates its herds of wildebeests, stigmatises the magnificent kangaroo as a pest like a blowfly.

Kangaroos are so little understood in their own country, and their negative profile has minimised them as little more than "wood chips" for meat and skin exports. Public hatred of kangaroos is totally incomprehensible! How could kangaroos be more in abundance now than when Captain Cook sailed up the coast? There is less water in our rivers, less wetlands, less vegetation and more feral species, thanks to human mismanagement! Our biodiversity losses are of a world class standard. Kangaroos are scapegoats for livestock and human damage.

The bashings, torture and killings of native animals, especially kangaroos, is surely a reflection on their status. We have officially-endorsed "culls" (read "massacres") such as at Canberra earlier this year, and another at Maria Island, Tasmania. Despite their falling numbers, their "harvest" quota is still set at 3.5 million!

In Victoria, the DSE regularly give permits for killings when landowners are inconvenienced. Is it not surprising that there are low-lives that think that killings for entertainment are "fair go".

Our wildlife needs to be protected as our national symbols, and any attacks or killings needs to attract heavy goal sentences and fines. We are famous for decimating our wildlife, and these sadistic attacks on kangaroos are a reflection of community attitudes that urgently need to change.

See also: Nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (Western Australia Today) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA launches nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (ABC) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA, police hunt for roo thug.

Promising new approach to restoring respect for kangaroos

The Kangaroo Trail map (pictured left) is a bold initiative from the persistently performing Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

We read often in the mainstream news distressing stories about how kangaroos are too numerous and need to be culled. In fact the evidence for these statements, and for the cruel and bloody actions that follow them, is extremely poor. Definitions of how many is too many are circular. Kangaroo population statistics which ignore immigration and emigration are useless. Statistics which infer population numbers from rising road-kill without factoring in the spread of development which is driving more animals onto the roads in search of food and water should be exposed for the rubbish that they are, but are accepted instead without question.

Stooping to aphrodisiac wildlife trade depraves Australia

Do Australians really want this kind of 'productivity' or the kind of leaders who encourage it?

Wildlife in general and kangaroos in particular get a really rotten deal in this country. Apart from the usual carnage promoted by our government at all levels, it seems that some businesses will stoop to any depth to make a dollar. Despite the invention of Viagra, the extinguishing of rhinos for their horns and tigers for their penises goes on. One of the most recent abjectly flogs ground up kangaroo testes in capsules at Australian Products Info, in NSW, and I quote:

"Essence of Kangaroo is made from Australian Red Kangaroo Testis. This large, powerful animal is the most magnificent of all the Kangaroos. It can leap up to 3.6m into the air and has a top speed of 65 km/hour. It alone illustrates the Kangaroos amazing strength and vitality. The research has found that male Kangaroo produces twice as much semen as a bull. The research has also proven that Essence of Kangaroo is extremely potent as it is rich in natural hormones, proteins, zinc and iron, which are able to increase physical strength and enhance the sexual energy. (...) Suggested Serving: Adults only. Take 1-2 capsules with meals per day or as directed by nutritionist."

Kangaroo trail tourist map restores respect for beautiful and gentle wildlife

So it is with relief and admiration for a group which punches a lot higher than its weight - the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) that I am able to report on a magical new idea to improve the public, business and government perception of kangaroos.

It is the Kangaroo trail tourist map. This is a beautiful colour pamphlet with images of the fifty kangaroo species located in their regions on a map of Australia. Around the map is additional information about these animals and where to see them, how to see them.

The Kangaroo Trail Team produced the Kangaroo Tourist Brochures. Map and illustrations are by Australian artist, Neil Williams. Main photographers are Juri Lochman, Michael Williams, Bill Corn, Uli Kloeke. Text is written by the kangaroo trail team leader, Dr David Croft, from the University of New South Wales, who is passionate about kangaroos and whose career has been devoted to learning more about them and educating others.

AWPC President Maryland Wilson deserves our support for leading the way

Maryland Wilson, President of the AWPC, and Kangaroo Trail Team manager, brought the project into life and is promoting it. Wilson's extraordinary energy and dedication to the shining cause of getting Australians to defend the kangaroo's right to live in its own land and to be loved and appreciated as a complex, beautiful and social creature defies nearly every prevailing trend and shows the kind of courage that is necessary in standing up to institutional cruelty.

(Original much larger photo by Ray Drew)

These healthy kangaroos, relaxed, uncrowded, in lush surroundings are all dead - order of ACT Australian government.

Housing estates due to go up around the area. (Does anyone know which developers?) The human species here is simply blind, absurd, and ridiculous to pretend that kangaroos are overpopulating when they are trapped and surrounded by expanding human populations, brought in to fill housing estates. Developers and government should be put on trial for causing enormous and needless suffering. They make Australians ashamed.

[Photograph by Marcus Fillinger, marcus[at]emulsion[dot]com[au].]

Some animals saved, after being ear-tagged, for fertility experiments and sterilisation.This animal is ‘darted’ with anaesthetic, then collared, and blindfolded to minimise stimulation, prior to contraceptive implant or sterilisation. Wildlife experts say it was all unnecessary.

Read on:

Much of the detail in the next nine paragraphs below comes from www.kangaroolives.com
In May 2007 the media exposed a covert plan by the Department of Defence and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government to shoot to kill up to 3,200 Kangaroos at two Defence sites in the ACT.

The reasons given at the time: to ‘save’ the kangaroos from starving and to prevent them from competing with certain endangered grassland species reported to be on these sites: the golden sun moth, a legless lizard, and the earless dragon.

Around 500 of these kangaroos are trapped by a 2.5 metre high fence on a 116 hectare parcel of land at the former Belconnen Naval Transmission Station (BNTS). Of these, the plan was for 400 to be killed and have the remaining kangaroos forcefully sterilised. Somewhat extreme and barbaric measures to protect a moth, and unlikely to be the real reason why the ACT Government is so keen to clear this site, as the area around it is earmarked for housing development.

Following an immediate public outcry and subsequent consultations between Defence and a range of interest groups, Defence agreed to consult more widely. Members of Wildcare, a local volunteer wildlife rescue organisation with over 15 years of hands-on experience rescuing and rehabilitating kangaroos, submitted a proposal to Defence recommending a whole-of-ecosystem approach to the kangaroo issue. This preliminary proposal also detailed a workable strategy for the translocation of kangaroos.

Finally in September 2007, after consultations with Wildcare and a panel of experts, Defence announced that it would implement a kangaroo management plan in the ACT designed to promote sound ecological management and a responsible approach to animal welfare. The plan was to use a mix of translocation, fertility control and – “only where necessary" – euthanasia to bring the kangaroo population into balance with the ecosystem at the BNTS site. The contract to the successful to implement this strategy was awarded in early 2008.

Suddenly on 29 February, the ACT Government announced that it would block any application for a permit to allow the ‘export’ of kangaroos from the BNTS site. Not coincidentally, the ACT’s official kangaroo ‘culling season’ (killing season) recommenced the very next day.

Defence went back on their word, and the slaughter of these kangaroos on the site began on 19 May 2008. It was to continue over the next few days, with a target of over 400 animals.

These kangaroos were healthy and there was currently ample grass on the site following good rains over summer, and higher than average rain predicted over the coming months. There was no need for this slaughter to proceed.

Viable alternatives were available, including translocation, but Defence has ruled this out as being too expensive. A number of suitable properties in NSW were proposed. The ACT Government chose instead to order the killing of the kangaroos. Kangaroos are Australia’s most important native species.

Photos of the cull can be viewed at www.kangaroolives.comand a video news report can be viewed here.

Although many animals have been killed, there is still a petition to sign. There are many signatures but more may help, even after the fact.

According to the writer at www.canberraroos.com/p8.html, there was a promise "that there would be an official count of kangaroo numbers at the BNTS site before any animal was harmed," but that this did not happen.

Some unofficial observers think that the full ‘quota’ may not have been met and wonder if the total number or roos in the Belconnen area had been exaggerated, since there don’t seem to be many left. IF the numbers were exaggerated then this would COMPLETELY undermine the rationale for killing them. It would show severely inaccurate counting, destroy the argument of overcrowding based on estimated numbers, and bolster the argument that these animals could not be overcrowded since they were in beautiful condition and appeared relaxed and comfortable.

www.canberraroos.com write: “Forget the attempts by Jon Stanhope, Maxine Cooper and their heavily funded experts to convince you this is the only humane option. Forget the words they use like ‘culling’ and ‘euthanasia’, these are only an attempt to trick the public into thinking that this whole operation is ‘humane’. These kangaroos will be herded into a pen and slaughtered, then tossed into a pit and buried.”

Background information and more about the kangaroos

“Australia: a culture of violence toward its native animals.” (written by Ray Drew and published with photographs.) “The government has claimed that moving the animals is too expensive. It has also claimed (reasons vary from month to month) they overcrowd the site, that they are endangering vulnerable species, or they are starving and they must be killed for ‘humane’ reasons! The protesters say all these accusations are false, and the real reason is that the animals must be got rid of to make way for urban development. It is a fact that the local government intends to build housing on the grasslands outside the base fence, and probably inside as well when they take possession of the base within 18 months. No mention has been made of danger to rare species in the grasslands that extend outside the base fence. Do vulnerable species cease to exist a metre from the boundary wire? Astoundingly, the government allows cattle to graze there. The truth is that the ACT government has a policy of never translocating kangaroos ― killing is its traditional solution to animals that get in the way of development or sheep or cattle farmers. Within Australia, kangaroo lives are almost valueless, other than as a source of meat or hide. Comparatively few Australians admire their beauty and sensitivity - those that do love them do so with great passion. Otherwise, the gentle animals appear to arouse an unreasoning hatred among sectors of the population. Whenever the government announces a ‘cull’ (kill) thousands do NOT flock to protest the slaughter. In contrast, visitors to the country adore them and cannot understand the mass slaughter, which amounts to 3.6 million or more a year. That amounts to 10,000 killed every night.”

If you are disgusted by the way these animals are being treated, please contact those below to make your feelings known. Australia is not a real democracy, but we might get it back if we all react strongly enough and keep exposing this kind of behaviour.

See also: Australian Political Hypocrites Order "Final Solution" on Kangaroos on 20 May 08 by Captain Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Kangaroo cull: necessary evil and the greater good of 27 May 08 by Adam Henry on Online Opinion with comments.

The Hon Kevin Rudd
Tel: 6277 7700
Fax: 6273 4100
Queensland numbers (His office is at Morningside):
Tel: 07 3899 4031
Fax: 07 3899 5755

The Hon Joel Fitzgibbon
Tel: 02 6277 7800
Fax: 6273 4118

The Hon Peter Garrett
Tel: 02 6277 7640
Fax: 02 6273 6101

The Hon Julia Gillard – as Minister for Education – what message are we giving our children about values and ethics?
Tel: 02 6277 7320
Fax: 02 6273 4115

The Hon Dr Michael Kelly AM - Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support
Tel: 02 6277 4840
Fax: 02 6277 8556

Jon Stanhope Chief Minister ACT
Tel: 02 6205 0104
Fax: 02 6205 0433

RSPCA ACT
Cruelty complaints: 1(300)477722
Injured wildlife 02 6287 8113
Fax: 02 6288 3184

Sources: The material above was based on information exchanged between activists, but most was adapted or taken directly from:
Brett Clifton’s petition preamble at www.canberraroos.com
and Ray Drew’s work at www.kangaroolives.com
The photographs were by Ray Drew. The video was from www.canberraroos.com.

The Weekly Times promoted the so-called ‘commercial culling’ of kangaroos in Victoria, where it is currently banned, in an opinion piece by John Kelly, Executive Officer of the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia. (“It’s time to say hoor-roo,” May 14, 2008, p.17.)

John Kelly correctly writes that in Victoria there are no reliable estimates of the size of the kangaroo population.

“Virtually nothing goes into ensuring the animal is protected or managed in any way. The state has no clear idea how many kangaroos it supports, where they live, what’s happening to their populations in response to seasonal conditions or, most disturbingly, how healthy they are."

He is right. Unfortunately the Victorian Government either doesn’t care, or it may actually want to get rid of wildlife because preserving it means restraints on development and human population growth.

But, with a kind of shoot first and ask questions later logic, Kelly argues that, “Establishing a commercial harvest and the data collection mechanisms required to implement it instantly changes all this.” He means that the Kangaroo industry should be given a license to kill kangaroos in exchange for doing the government’s job of collecting statistics.

We do need good data collection mechanisms because the data available on the structure of kangaroo populations and the size and health of individuals gives reason for anxiety. To authorize commercial kills in return for data, however, is to put the cart before the horse and then shoot the horse as a good business deal and good for horses.

Kelly cites the RACV as having recently reported an increase in animal collisions in 2005 of 43 per cent over the previous two years.

Kelly then proceeds to create an impression that
(a) kangaroos are the cause of increasing road collisions; and that
(b) they therefore must be more numerous.

Shamelessly he concludes that “It is also reasonable to expect a well managed kangaroo harvest to reduce this [imagined kangaroo proliferation].”

Let us look at the first claim, that animal collisions are increasing. Kelly implies that collisions (with all kinds of animals) are increasing because the number of animals is increasing. According to the AWPC, however, this does not make sense:

“Likely reasons for more animal collisions are more toll-ways, roads and suburban expansion. More cars and human activities are coming into conflict with animals who were previously in safe habitats in Victoria."

“Humans are the only species in Australia that is rapidly increasing and our numbers and expansion coincide with a decrease in other species.”

Indeed, uprooted dying trees and devastated grasslands are a familiar sight in Australia, a country where extinctions are proceeding at a greater pace than almost any other country on earth (refs: 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 1990 and 1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2008

The overall trend is a decrease in other species and a higher death rate. Commercial kangaroo killing will only accelerate the death rate.

If a farmer built a housing estate in his front paddock and chased all his stock out onto the road, would he count the pile of corpses and conclude that there were more cows in his front paddock as a result? This is what the Kangaroo Industries Association of Victoria seems to be doing.

Maryland Wilson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) agrees that more accurate counting, assessment, protection and better treatment is necessary, but cannot agree that there is any evidence that the numbers could warrant kangaroo killing commercialisation. The AWPC came to the opposite conclusion through scientifically based and accurate counting of kangaroos and other wildlife in local areas, starting with the Mornington Peninsula. The AWPC warns that the population structures and the trends in numbers long-term point to high extinction risks unless we protect the animals from road and suburb encroachment by providing connecting corridors and protecting and extending habitats.

But Kelly writes, “Put it altogether and a commercial kangaroo harvest would be worth well over $15 million a year to Victoria. It turns a shameful waste into a valuable resource and delivers better kangaroo damage mitigation to embattled farmers and better animal welfare outcomes than current practices.” In a final flourish, he adds, “It is [also] likely to improve public safety on roads, helps to protect plant bio-diversity from overgrazing, and creates jobs in the bush. Why not do it?"

But Maryland Wilson of the AWPC, said that Mr Kelly’s conclusions are simply astounding.

“Mr Kelly is completely out of date, even citing the industry’s own authorities. Gordon Grigg, the author of the industry ‘bible’, 'Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia', upon whose research the industry developed, recently repudiated his original conclusions. He stated that, 'The damage done on grazing lands by kangaroos has been overestimated by up to 500%.' His conclusion was that, 'This would mean that kangaroos are a much smaller component of the total grazing pressure than is generally accepted'. And he concluded that, 'The hope of getting a significant improvement in wool production by pest-control of kangaroos is probably doomed to failure'".
(Grigg citation by Juliet Gellatley, UK zoologist, in, "Slaughter of the innocents", Viva Life, UK, Spring, 2002.)

Maryland Wilson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, stated yesterday that the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority (SEITA) has failed to adequately address the concerns she raised on behalf of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council or the Coalition of Wildlife Corridors.

Wildlife campaigner says SEITA route for Frankston Bypass will severely impact wildlife

Maryland Wilson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, stated yesterday (May 14, 2008) that the Southern and Eastern Integrated Transport Authority (SEITA) has failed to adequately address the concerns for wildlife she raised on behalf of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council or the Coalition of Wildlife Corridors. These concerns were specifically about the threat posed to wildlife and their habitat by the infrastructure and traffic which will be created if the SEITA proposed bypass route goes ahead.

Ms Wilson said that the AWPC's observation as well as discussion with persons well-informed in road-engineering, population and land-use planning, Peninsula Biosphere maintenance, wildlife-ecology and social amenity leaves the AWPC in no doubt that

a) the proposed route will severely impact on scarce habitat for local, regional and State biodiversity
b) SEITA and the government have not seriously examined viable alternatives
c) the Pines draft master plan – part two and part three fail to remedy these problems
d) the Pines draft master plan suggestion of a connection between the parts of the Reserve it will split would only present a very insignificant mitigation of the overall drastic damage
e) the proposed restructuring and popularisation of the reserve inaccurately markets new and additional habitat-stress as habitat and wildlife friendly.

"Even worse", said Ms Wilson, "The proposed route will divide the Peninsula in two, making any hope of interconnecting wildlife corridors from East to West of the Peninsula impossible." "Plans for interconnecting corridors have been on the AWPC website now for over a year," she said.

The Wildlife campaigner explained that it is not acceptable for the government or its chosen contractors to go ahead with a structure which, despite some rhetorically supportive policies in Pines draft master plans, parts two and three, is in practice oppositional to international, Australian, and local practice and science for protecting the needs of wildlife.

She added that people needed to be made aware that, "At the moment Frankston and the Peninsula, although part of an international UNESCO agreement for a biosphere that protects fauna and flora, are facing unacceptable decimation of indigenous animals in all or most areas where they struggle to survive."

"Roads, through habitat fragmentation and isolation, through very high rates of road-kill, and through their spear-heading of suburban expansion, are the drivers of animal deaths and species loss."

President Wilson said that SEITA will only encounter and should only encounter opposition if it fails to use alternative routes to protect any indigenous fauna habitat from being cut off from the rest of the Pines, or indeed where similar fragmentation is threatened for any other habitats.

"Australian fauna is at greater risk than at any other time in history due to climate change, drought, habitat-fragmentation and annihilation. The need for more, not fewer, bio-links to save species and individual animals is critical."

"With regards to the other areas of Frankston and the Peninsula, if SEITA continues with the same lack of awareness as previous road-builders in this country, of the many modern methods for mitigating road-kill, such as bridges, tunnels and overpasses, then it cannot expect and will not deserve support."

Her concluding remark demonstrated that the AWPC has a more sophisticated awareness of economy perhaps than do investors in freeways and the governments which support such massive infrastructure projects:

"The population growth and urban expansion which SEITA and similar industry corporations rely on in Australia for customers and investors is not supported by the incumbent population and will probably become very problematical very soon due to oil depletion."

Maryland Wilson, President of the registered charity, Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc., and spokesman for the Coalition for Wildlife Corridors can be contacted at kangaroo AT peninsula.hotkey.net.au or at 03 59788570, mobile 0417 148 501 The AWPC is located at 247 Flinders Lane Melbourne, Victoria 3000. For further details go to www.awpc.org.au