Kangamail, our Kangaroo Newsletter No 37!

Treasury boss opposed cull Defence's surprise decision to abandon a cull of more than 3000 kangaroos was made after private lobbying by Treasury secretary and wildlife devotee Ken Henry. Dr Henry co-wrote a report for Wildcare Queanbeyan urging Defence not to proceed with the cull. The revelation of Dr Henry's involvement has sparked angry criticism from pro-cull groups. They claimed Dr Henry's senior role with a Federal Government department could have made Wildcare's proposal more palatable to Defence.

But Wildcare says its report was backed by Defence because it was a good proposal, not because of Dr Henry's involvement, and has accused its critics of "sour grapes". The cull has been mired in controversy for months. The debate took a new turn last Thursday when Defence suddenly announced it had dumped its cull plans, despite having obtained a licence from the ACT Government. Defence said there was not enough time before the culling season ended on July 31, which at the time was 26 days away. Defence said instead of culling, it would look into Wildcare's report on managing kangaroo numbers by non-lethal methods.

The possibility of granting significant funding to Wildcare to carry out this proposal has not been ruled out. Scientists and conservation groups have criticised the decision, saying the cull should proceed because the kangaroos were too numerous, faced starvation and were damaging their environments. They asked why Defence had turned to Wildcare, a little-known volunteer group which mainly rescues injured wildlife, instead of heeding the experts.

ACT Greens MLA Deb Foskey asked whether Defence's decision not to cull was related to the political connections of Wildcare. "It doesn't look good," she said of Dr Henry's involvement. Dr Foskey said Defence's claim that it did not have enough time to cull was "a lame excuse". "So we think what's the real reason ... it must be political," she said.

"How much was it just because of who [Wildcare] are, just because of the political connections?" Dr Foskey said it was possible that Defence's positive response to the Wildcare proposal was related to Dr Henry's co-authorship of it. The RSPCA's chief executive officer for the ACT, Michael Linke, said he did not understand Defence's heavy reliance on Wildcare. "We're confused as to why Wildcare have been elevated to the status of a pre-eminent organisation," he said.

"Obviously Dr Henry is secretary of Treasury ... I wouldn't like to speculate." The ACT's Conservation Council director, Trish Harrup, asked why Defence was relying on Wildcare's report and ignoring expert scientific advice. "It raises a lot of questions," she said. "We're yet to see a good explanation as to why Defence would be going to a Wildcare group whose expertise lies in injured animals.

"Defence needs to come clean on why the advice of authorities ... was being overlooked." Wildcare's report lists Dr Henry as one of the authors, and notes he had been a member of the organisation for 10 years and was made a Companion in the Order of Australia this year, partly for his work towards wildlife welfare. His wife, Naomi Henry, also a Wildcare member, presented the report at a meeting last week.

Wildcare president Steve Garlick said there had been no favouritism from Defence because of Dr Henry's role. "It would be unfair to say that it was because of Ken's interest and involvement that we've got to this stage," Professor Garlick said. "Ken was certainly one of the authors [of the report] but there were a number of others." Professor Garlick said Wildcare's report was professional and took a long-term strategic approach, and the organisation had a positive reputation and practical knowledge of kangaroos.

Professor Garlick said scientists had not provided strong, peer-reviewed cases to Defence for the cull. to proceed. "If they have the science, let's see it," he said. He said claims that Wildcare's report was taken up because of Dr Henry's involvement "sounds like sour grapes". Dr Henry was asked to comment, via Wildcare, but did not respond.

Defence, when asked if Dr Henry's role had played a part in the decision not to cull, said all questions about Wildcare's report should go to Wildcare. Defence had obtained a licence to shoot 2800 kangaroos at the Majura Training area, and dart and euthanase 400 more at a Belconnen site. It is now considering Wildcare's proposal to feed the animals, move some and fast-track fertility-control measures. Canberra Times

Ed Comment; Well, sour grapes indeed! What this story didn’t say was that dozens of submissions and letters from wildlife groups all over the country were sent to the Defence Minister, including a strong submission from WPAA. As Professor Garlick suggested, the scientists had not provided strong, peer-reviewed cases to Defence for the kill.

But Canberra has always had peculiar politics, and it is interesting to find out what the Canberra Greens think.... and the local Conservation Council too. Why would they think its fine to ki.ll 3200 kangaroos when all the wildlife and animal welfare groups do not? Are there funding issues here? Who would vote Green in Canberra?

I politely declined to be involved in the ADF “stakeholder” meeting where the decision not to ki.ll was announced. As I expected, the wildlife groups who did attend were savagely attacked by the so-called academic “experts”, most of whom wouldn’t know one end of a kangaroo from the other. I suspect their support for a k.ill was prompted by funding opportunities, which now may go to Wildcare. No wonder they all have sour grapes. Serves them right, hypocrisy reaps its own reward. Kangaroos rule OK! in Canberra, which is much more than can be said for the Canberra Greens!

**********************************

Stanhope says Defence obligated to cull roos.....(more sour grapes!)

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says he will seek legal advice over the Defence Department's decision to back down from plans to cull kangaroos at two of its sites. The Defence Department had been granted licences to shoot roos at Majura and to dart and euthanase the animals at Belconnen, but it deferred the cull, saying it has run out of time.

Mr Stanhope met with the RSPCA today. He says the Defence Department has failed to meet its legal obligations by refusing to cull the roos. "I believe there is a case - I'll seek definitive advice on this - but I believe the Department of Defence isn't really in a situation where it can decide whether or not to meet its obligations in relation to the number of kangaroos that can be sustained in those the two areas," he said. * ABC 13/7/08

*************************

Outright rejection

Thank you, Ian Fraser, for your considered letter about eastern grey kangaroos and the regional grasslands and woodlands which are their traditional, and our new, habitat (July 8). As you said, the notion of clear-felling the Cairns rainforests is inconceivable (though the Atherton rainforests were not spared), but allowing run-away populations of kangaroos to clear-fell these grasslands is destroying whole ecosystems of immense value and complexity.

But beyond the human mismanagement of kangaroos lies the most efficient clear-felling of them all, the bricks and mortar of an already over-grown Canberra. Most of us know about water at last, and some know that we won't much longer be allowed to freight food all over the place (watch the price of winter vegetables from smitten Victoria in coming weeks).

This marvellous country is capable of carrying many fewer humans than it does today. It is now, along with the over-populated planet, thinking of rejecting us outright, as the splendid Canberran, thinker Dorothy Green, put it in the late 1980s. Dr Elizabeth Lawson, Queanbeyan, NSW

**********************

A prominent ecologist has called on farmers to consider giving away sheep farming and instead harvest kangaroos. The proposal has been floated by Chris Dickhead (sorry, Dickman) from the University of Sydney. He says 15 per cent of Australia which receives moderate to low rainfall is currently used for farming sheep and wheat.

But he says graziers would get a better return if they were harvesting kangaroos. "I think its a great alternative to start looking at in areas where overgrazing by sheep just hasn't worked and where incomes are coming down where it is not sustainable," he said.

He says overgrazing by sheep causes problems for the topsoil and native vegetation, while kangaroos, in contrast, are light on the environment. He also says the kangaroo meat market is picking up.

Farmers, however, are not convinced that it is the most viable alternative. The New South Wales Farmers Association does not believe there is enough demand for kangaroo meat for producers to abandon sheep farming.

The Association's vice-president Graham Morphett says the kangaroo industry is struggling because of a lack of demand, so sheep meat and wool are still far more profitable. "We'd need to have shooters, we'd need to have a regulated industry and it may be there but at this stage I haven't seen it," he said. * ABC "It's a market, I can assure you if farmers are always looking for new ways and new markets they would do it if it was a possible. "But I haven't heard of any people changing over." *ABC

**********************************

We’ve been looking at the FATE Program website, a “mickey mouse” program set up by Dr Michael Archer and a few others to capitalise on funding opportunities by promoting kangaroo killing for meat and skins.

The website states; Kangaroo harvesting in Australia has evolved over the last 30 years or more from simply being a means of finding uses for kangaroos killed under a pest control mindset to being a valuable rural industry employing over 4000 Australians. Despite the dire predictions of some groups opposed to the commercial harvest of Australia's national icon, it has proven itself to be a demonstrably sustainable use of an abundant free-ranging wildlife resource.....blah, blah, blah, etc. And more blah.

Our understanding is that farmers wasn’t nothing to do with this nonsense, and it seems the Program is doing what it deserves to do...dying a natural death. Many of the pages haven’t been updated from 2005 and mid 2006. Good riddance!

**********************************

We really need a huge, world-wide opposition to SB880 (the bill that removes protections for kangaroos in California) to get to the Governor. PLEASE ask everyone to contact the Governor. We would really love to get a copy of what is sent out at roos@vivausa.org so we can see how much opposition is mounting. Let me know if you need more details, i am just trying to send this out quickly to the main people who has been following this internationally. Folks at Viva!, it would be great to get other organizations around the world to help too -- we will be working on the USA.

If you haven’t sent an email to Arnold yet, now would be as good a time as any to do it! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 916-445-2841 916-445-4633 fax governor@governor.ca.gov

**********************************

The kangaroo population at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station was old and may fall without further human intervention, the President of Wildcare NSW Steve Garlick said yesterday. Mr Garlick and other members of his organisation were invited by Defence to assess the kangaroos at the Belconnen and Mount Majura sites after Defence's kangaroo cull proposal became public.

''What struck us at Belconnen was that this was a very different structure of a kangaroo mob,'' he said. ''It wasn't the normal structure where you have a mixture of adults, juveniles, joeys at heel and pouch joeys.''That structure didn't seem to be there. ''The gender mix was also imbalanced with many more males.'' Given this structure, he said it was a possibility the group numbers could decline without human intervention.''We need to look at this far more closely and we need more time,'' he said.

Defence consultants had earlier estimated that there would be 584 kangaroos at the Belconnen site by March this year. But separate estimates by the ACT Government put the number at 505 in May. ''So our first question was, where have 79 gone?'' he said. The mob could be looked at from the perspective of fertility and mortality and the trend could be examined.

''We need to do an assessment to get a proper understanding of what the dynamics are. ''If it's a contained group and getting progressively older and the fertility rate is falling because there's more males and females, then the forecast into the future is that the numbers should drop to quite a low level,'' he said.

He said the Belconnen site was in an ideal position to become an inner city nature reserve. A spokeswoman for the acting Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, said yesterday the management of Defence land, including issues of animal welfare and complying with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act were the responsibility of Defence. A spokeswoman for the Defence Department said Defence had decided to defer any decision for the immediate future to cull kangaroos, in order to gain more information on a suitable long-term ecosystem wide management strategy.

Ms Gallagher's spokeswoman said decisions such as whether to conduct a kangaroo cull had to be kept beyond politics. ''The decision of the ACT Conservator of Flora and Fauna to issue cull licences to Defence was based on rigorous scientific analysis and expert advice,'' she said.''The ACT Government's concern is to ensure animal welfare and conservation outcomes.

''The ACT Government looks forward to seeing the science upon which Defence based its decision not to conduct a cull and their detailed plans for meeting their animal welfare and conservation obligations.'' The RSPCA's chief executive, Michael Linke, said his society's position was not in favour of a cull or opposed to a cull. ''What we want to see Defence come up with is a sensible science- based strategy that manages kangaroos and endangered species on both blocks of land,'' he said. *Canberra times

**********************************************

The article by your environmental reporter on the aborted kangaroo cull (CT, Page B3, July 7) is emotional, unbalanced and erroneous. Her disdain about the possible demise of a highly endangered grassland habitat and a number of its equally significant animal and floral inhabitants does not conform to her more than obvious animal welfare interests.

Endangered species are at risk here. As your science and environmental reporter, I expect her to have a much greater knowledge of local environmental issues if she is going to express herself about them, and certainly not to simply dismiss the extraordinary amount of science that advised the final approval to cull. The article shows complete lack of any research or even a simple inquiry of Defence about Majura.

Defence has an excellent reputation for its environmental management at Majura, and for its cooperation with researchers who are working on the site. I would like her to inquire of Defence as to why it deferred this long-term research advice in favour of anecdotal emotionalism. It is unlike Defence to not act quickly on environmental issues as serious as this. A cull is necessary and should be done as expediently as possible.

You reporter makes too many other totally erroneous and fallacious assertions about ''grassland evangelists'' and ''newly vocal grassland devotees'' to address here, other than to say her awareness of these groups and their activities over a long period of time is Neolithic.

However, before she sprays venom at local environmental groups about not being involved with the Molonglo Valley development and other grassland sites, she could again have made a simple call to any number of groups.

You are wrong yet again, Rosslyn Beeby there has been a long-term campaign on this and other developments, and on the very issues (and more) that you raised. Are the anti-cull activists organisations doing the same? Stop press I have just seen Ian Fraser's letter in the same edition. I need say no more. Letter to Canberra times

****************************************

Ian Fraser's denunciation of the Defence Department's decision to pursue non-lethal solutions for the kangaroo crisis at its Majura training site (Letters, July 7) indicates that a fickle, self-contradictory psyche exists among local conservationists. Recently, when plans for a kangaroo cull were announced, the roar from the green sector of the socio-political spectrum was deafening.

One fellow encapsulated the mindset when he cried from the bottom of his bleeding, histrionic heart, ''Well, Defence is all about the gun thing.'' Now, despite Defence putting the shooting option aside, the tree-and- shrub-hugger coteries strive to maintain their rage and perhaps their raison d'etre by spearing off on a different tack, accusing Defence of being pusillanimous, disingenuous and cowardly. Such brusque switches of agenda do nothing to attract and retain the public's credence and support. *Letter to Canberra Time

*************************************

Thumbs up for plan to move roos Rosslyn Beeby

One of Australia's top kangaroo ecologists has given the thumbs up to a plan by Queanbeyan-based volunteer wildlife group Wildcare to relocate kangaroos from the Australian Defence Force site at Belconnen. "It sounds pretty well-researched and I can see no reason not to go ahead with it," the director of the University of NSW Arid Zone research station, Dr David Croft, said.

Earlier this week, Wildcare president Professor Steve Garlick gave The Canberra Times exclusive access to the draft proposal submitted to Defence by the organisation. It details a three-stage action plan to move the kangaroos to new locations, suggests an expert advisory panel be appointed to supervise the operation and calls for an independent peer-review of all environmental research and consultants' reports on the two grassland sites.

"If any of this scientific research hasn't been published in first-tier journals, then it shouldn't be broadcast as fact," Professor Garlick said.

Despite being issued with a licence by the ACT Government to cull more than 3000 kangaroos at sites in Belconnen and Majura, Defence recently announced it would not go ahead with the cull. But ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says Defence may be legally obliged to go ahead with the cull, and is seeking legal advice on the matter. " I believe the Department of Defence isn't really in a situation where it can decide whether or not to meet its obligations in relation to the number of kangaroos that can be sustained in those the two areas," he said.

But government sources have told The Canberra Times the Government's opposition is based on plans to release 500 blocks of land for a housing development at Lawson, directly adjacent to the Defence site at Belconnen.

A spokeswoman for Mr Stanhope confirmed plans for the development, which will include low-income affordable housing, but said development was unlikely to proceed this financial year.

The Wildcare plan to move kangaroos from the site lists scientific experts across three states who are willing to support the plan, including vets, ecologists and a fauna consultant with extensive experience in shipping kangaroos to zoos in China, Japan and the United States.

Dr Croft, who has published numerous scientific papers on kangaroo management, said Wildcare's plan to move the kangaroos could potentially deliver breakthrough science. He said he would be "willing to consider" becoming involved in the translocation operation, or to becoming part of the expert advisory panel. "If people really get behind the idea, then it could bring together experts and concerned citizens from right around Australia.

"If the translocation process proves to be impossible which I doubt at least it will have provided a good opportunity to do important research," Dr Croft said. Professor Garlick said the first stage was to conduct a comprehensive population census "not just a head count" of kangaroos at the Belconnen site. *Canberra Times

******************************

Editor; Being fond of cooking, (and eating) I closely watch the cooking pages in the newspapers while we are looking for wildlife news items. What I have noticed is that there are now very few recipes being touted for kangaroo meat, compared with what there used to be a few years ago. Perhaps the journalists have finally woken up, that kangaroo meat is on the nose!

In fact it appears to be only Woolworths, Coles and a few IGA stores that now stock it in any quantity. Naturally our groups have been writing to these monopoly outlets for years about kangaroo meat, but our letters fall on deaf ears. But then these Supermarkets control all our food supplies, from worldwide paddock to Aussie plate, so why would they care about our kangaroos?

**************************

Kangamail and the Kangaroo Protection Website is sponsored by the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc.

Thinking about Wildlife? Who’s going to watch over our wildlife when you no longer share their World? Well, we are! The Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. will continue to forcefully lobby governments to do better with wildlife management, and by taking them to Court if necessary. We are currently working on developing eLearning projects, so students can become aware of the importance of our wildlife living in a safe and secure natural environment. After you have looked after your family and friends in your Will, think about wildlife.

A bequest to the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc. will ensure that we continue to take a leading role in protecting and conserving our precious wildlife. None of the donations we receive are diverted to "administration". Every dollar we get through bequests or donations for wildlife hits the ground running! Talk to your solicitor, or phone us for a confidential chat, as to how a bequest can help us work to protect our wildlife, when you are no longer able to. *

************************