Kangamail, kangaroo newsletter 50

Animal rights groups say they are strongly opposed to a new code of conduct for the kangaroo harvesting industry. Under the code, developed by the Department of Environment and Heritage, only roos killed with a head shot can be processd. Angie Stephensen from Animal Liberation Australia says the key area of concern with the code is the disposal of joeys. "This latest review deals with the issue of the young joey at foot, a problem which the industry is trying to wash over, allowing any shooters in the field to shoot the joey at foot if they can identify which joey belongs to which mother," she says. "This is one of the biggest problems we see with this latest review of the code of practice". *ABC 10/1/08

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

Animal activists today held a macabre protest at the Japanese consulate, likening Australia’s commercial cull of kangaroos to the Japanese whale harvest. The protesters, some of which were dressed as Kangaroos and were mock-executed by men brandishing firearms, stated: "Japan slaughters whales – Australia slaughters Kangaroos – What’s the bloody difference?" Animal Liberation staged the protest in opposition to the Revised Code of Conduct for the Human Killing of Kangaroos. The revised code states that orphaned joeys must be shot.

Angie Stevenson, project manager for the group, said commercial kangaroo culls are responsible for the “largest wildlife massacre in the world,” and the change to include killing ‘young-at-foot’ joeys will wipe the next generation of the native animal off the planet. “Of the total commercial kangaroo kill, 25 per cent are females with young-at-foot joeys,” she said. “The next generation of kangaroos are about to be wiped off the face of the earth due to this new code.” The group has called for a blanket ban on the killing of female kangaroos.

The protest also included a DVD drop. The vision obtained by LIVENEWS.com.au shows graphic images of kangaroos being slaughtered. One image depicts a child, who looks to be around eight years old, repeatedly beating a baby kangaroo against the side of a vehicle, after it was found in the pouch of its dead mother. The child wields the animal like a baseball bat and takes around five swings until the small animal hangs loose in his hand, obviously deceased. LIVENEWS.com.au has provided excerpts of the brutal video, but warns the content is graphic, and may offend some users. We are also awaiting comment on the issue from NSW Farmer’s Federation Association President Jock Laurie. *Livenews 12/1/08

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

Grazier dismisses claims roos are 'regionally-extinct'. A Western Queensland grazier has refuted suggestions that kangaroos are becoming "regionally-extinct" in the area. The Wildlife Protection Association says it has had an undercover operation investigating kangaroo chiller boxes for two years, and has noted that up to 80 per cent of those being harvested are females. But Cunnamulla grazier Prue Barkla says it is nonsense to suggest numbers are nearing extinction.

"I ask these people to please go and look and see what is here, and have a look at the pressure that's here on this country today," she said. "We don't want to see the kangaroo extinct and we never will do, I can assure you that there are many young does out there breeding beautifully. "They'll never, ever be extinct." *ABC 9/1/08

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

It is disappointing that in her articles (''New roo kill code targets joeys'', p1, and ''In for the kill'', pB1, both January5) Rosslyn Beeby has misrepresented a number of issues relating to the introduction of a new Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos . As part of a Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council working group, the Australian, state and territory governments, chaired by Western Australia, are undertaking a detailed review of the current code of practice to ensure it prescribes best practice for the humane killing of kangaroos and wallabies ensuring minimal pain and suffering to the animals.

The current public comment period is an opportunity for the community to provide information, to advise and suggest alternatives. Once finalised and endorsed by the Ministerial Council, it is proposed that the draft code will replace the current code. Contrary to the inferences in the articles, the draft code does not propose new arrangements for the use of shotguns but elaborates on, and clarifies, the conditions in the present code that allow, under limited circumstances, the use of shotguns.

The draft code makes explicit that no commercial use of kangaroos or kangaroo products can be made where shotguns are used. It is also incorrect to say that the existing code does not cover pouch joeys and the young-at- foot. It does, and the new code of practice will provide more comprehensive information on the most humane and practical ways of ensuring these young receive a humane death, rather than leaving them to die cruelly through starvation, dehydration or predation.

Representatives from state and commonwealth agencies, the kangaroo industry and animal welfare organisations are participating in the review process and one thing is clear all parties are working to ensure the humane killing of kangaroos and wallabies under workable arrangements. * Letter to the Canberra Times by Gerard Early, Deputy Secretary Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 8/1/08

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

Here are some interesting figures regarding the commercial kangaroo kill.

We know that around 60 to 70% of all kangaroos killed in NSW are around the 16 kg size. Shooters get paid .40c per kg dressed weight. One NSW processor is currently only paying .35c kg. That makes the kangaroo worth about $6.40 to the shooter.

According to the shooters, the costs are....per kangarooo...$3.50 for fuel, .80 for the bullet, .80 for the tag, which leaves them with $5.10 in costs, or a profit of $1.30 per kangaroo. But that doesnt include vehicle running and maintenance costs! So we can assume that maintenance costs are half of the profit, or .65 cents per kangaroo. With a quota of one million kangaroos per year, and 800 licensed shooters in NSW, that means each shooter can shoot 1250 kangaroos in year....at .65 cents profit...or a yearly profit $812.50 for the year....before tax.... Is this Industry viable? Not likely!

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

In the Canberra Times of Sunday December 23rd, 2007, page 26 "Kangaroo meat might be a low fat alternative to to beef, but research from Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital suggests it may trigger allergic reactions in some diners. A specific marsupial protein allergen is to blame, the medical journal ALLERGY reports." Another report exists on Toxoplasmosis Goondii and the possible side effects (we know that this pathogen cannot be detected in the field but requires a full laboratory report to detect) It may be very interesting to look at the legal implications for a compensation claim of anybody contracting an illness after consuming this so-called healthy "foodstuff" .

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

There has been a furious response to a 10-minute video posted on the YouTube website, which uses graphic images of the killing of kangaroos and dingoes to decry Australia's opposition to whaling. The video uses gruesome images of slain dingoes, a wallaby being beaten to death and a joey being wrenched from the pouch of a dying kangaroo to accuse Australia of hypocrisy over its stance on Japan's whaling program. The basic thrust is that killing animals for food is cruel, but it is human instinct, regardless of whether the animal is a kangaroo or a whale.

It quotes the president of the Western Australian Dingo Association, Nic Papalia, to support the argument. Two years ago, Mr Papalia wrote to the Japan Times accusing Australian politicians of hypocrisy for campaigning against whaling but condoning programs to exterminate dingoes. The Dingo Association's secretary, Leigh Mullan, says while the quotes are accurate, they are mischievously selective. "We in no way condone whaling whatsoever," she said.

"I think they've used the quotes to their own benefit, and ... the whole video just pulls apart this argument completely." The other big claim in the video is that Australia's policy on whaling is racist. Along with ugly images of the Cronulla race riots, English and Japanese subtitles highlight Australia's former 'white Australia' policy. The video says Aboriginal Australians and Asians are still treated as second class citizens and that is the reason Australia targets Japan's whaling program.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says the video will not sway the Government from its anti-whaling stance. "It certainly will not in any way affect our strong opposition to whaling," he said. "The Australian Government, nor do I believe the Australian people, will not resile from that strongly-held view." Greenpeace Australia's Pacific Whales campaigner Rob Nicoll says the video's claims are simply distracting Australians from more important questions. "It's something that the whaling proponents, the small minority in Japan that wants to continue whaling, has tried to stifle debate within Japan by saying it's a real 'us versus them' type of issue," he said. "In the past they've been quite successful in doing that, saying it's Western nations telling us what to do, cultural imperialism, and even as you've seen, it's gone so far as to say it's racism." ABC

Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8lvep0-Ii0

In a Doorstop interview on the 7th January, Stephen Smith, Minister for Foriegn Affairs, was asked about the kangaroos on Youtube video.

QUESTION: Can I just ask about the kangaroos? I mean, will it be a problem, and what do you…

STEPHEN SMITH: The kangaroos, sorry?

QUESTION: Oh, sorry, the culling of the - the YouTube clip, with the kangaroo [indistinct], and I must admit I haven't seen it, I've just heard about it. Why do you see whaling as wrong but killing kangaroos and dingos is acceptable? Is that what they've got on the YouTube video?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, I think when you have - if you have a quick look at the video on the computer screen I think the first thing, the first conclusion that you come to is firstly it is untasteworthy in the extreme. That's the kindest thing I can think to say about it.

And so its general overtone, its general content, I absolutely condemned. It's anonymous, so that tells you something before you start, firstly. Secondly, the overall tone is one which is untasteful. It's one which I think the Australian people will, quite rightly, reject, but it is not something which will see the Australian Government resile from its commitment to seek to have the Japanese cease whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Nor is it something, an anonymous video, nor is it something which will, in my view, in any way disturb or affect the very good relationship between Australia and Japan. Just as a strong disagreement over whaling will not of itself either impact adversely upon the relationship between Australia and Japan.

I spoke to the Japanese Foreign Minister in the late days of December, and he and I both agreed that the long-standing friendship between Australia and Japan was such that the strong view of the Australian Government, and the strong view of the Japanese Government, albeit in disagreement, would not impact upon the strength of that relationship.

In very many respects it is the strength of the relationship, the long-standing relationship between Australia and Japan which allows us to take a strong view and take, in my view, strong action on whaling.

And the video, which, as I say, is in my view untasteworthy in the extreme, with overtones and implications which I think the Australian people will rightly reject, will not cause us to deter from our public policy objective of having the Japanese cease whaling in the Southern Oceans. Nor will it, in my view, impact adversely on the relationship between Australia and Japan.

Ed Comment, Notice that the Minister didnt actually mention kangaroos in his response?

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

The Kangaroo Trail Map. The website for the Kangaroo Trail Map is http://www.rootourism.com.au It's very good, try to find time to have a look.

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

Shotguns can now be used to kill kangaroo joeys at close range under proposed changes to the Federal Government's kangaroo shooting laws. The proposal has enraged animal welfare groups, including the late Steve Irwin's Wildlife Protection Association and RSPCA Australia, which had called for a total ban on shotguns in the revised National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies. The new code also recommends killing pouch joeys by "forcefully swinging" the head against a vehicle tow bar, despite calls for the Federal Government to fund urgent scientific research to establish more humane ways of disposing of pouch young after the mother has been shot.

The previous code did not provide any guidance on dealing with orphaned young at foot joeys aged from nine to 12 months that have left the pouch but are still dependent on the mother for food. The new code suggests using shotguns to kill these joeys, as well as pouch young, at close range if the mothers are shot. "These changes are basically saying the Federal Government believes it's OK to blast a defenceless joey to bits with a shotgun. It's disgusting and reveals a mentality that regards our wildlife as worthless and ultimately disposable," the president of the Wildlife Protection Association, Pat O'Brien, said.

Conservationist and former NSW upper house parliamentarian Richard Jones described the new code as "sanctioning the most grotesque cruelty" and warned it would undermine the Rudd Government's efforts to stop Japan's scientific whaling program in Antarctica. "We can hardly take the high moral ground on animal welfare and whale conservation when the Government is prepared to condone barbaric practices regarding our native wildlife. The Japanese will laugh at us as hypocrites," Mr Jones said. Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett was unavailable for comment, but a spokesman said the new code prescribed "best practice" for humane killing of kangaroos and wallabies, "ensuring minimal pain and suffering to the animals".

A ministerial working group was appointed four years ago to review the code of practice after RSPCA Australia delivered a damning report to the Federal Government on the code's failure to prevent animal cruelty during commercial harvesting of kangaroos, pest control culling and recreational hunting. The RSPCA made 14 recommendations for changes, including a ban on shotguns and on shooting female kangaroos and wallabies with large pouch joeys or dependent young at foot. "Any reference to the use of shotguns on any macropod should be removed from the code of practice," the report said. Other recommendations included a night-shooting accuracy test for all shooters, a requirement to establish "a bona fide problem of kangaroo damage" prior to non-commercial culling and phasing out "damage mitigation" licences allowing farmers to shoot kangaroos on their properties.

"The only solution which would avoid the potential of cruelty to pouch young would be to avoid shooting females altogether," the report said. None of the recommendations has been adopted. RSPCA Australia chief scientist Dr Bidda Jones said that, despite being a member of the working group reviewing the shooting code, she had been unable to influence its development. "We are very much a lone voice for animal welfare within the working group, and only hope that during the public comment phase members of the public will pick up on some of these issues," she said. The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts posted the draft code on its website this week, without any public announcement. The deadline for public comment is 6 March, but the department warns submissions will not be considered if they propose options that are "technically unfeasible" or "cannot be reasonably and safely applied in the field by kangaroo shooters".

The working group has already rejected suggestions that joeys could be transferred to wildlife carers as inappropriate. It also rejected calls for tighter shooting controls as "creating significant compliance issues". The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia said it iwas "generally happy" with the new code and defended current killing methods including decapitation of unfurred joeys and a blow to the brain with a metal pipe or vehicle tow bar for larger pouch joeys as "perfectly humane activities". "Animal welfare is precisely what this code of practice is all about," the association's executive officer, John Kelly, said. *Canberra Times, 5/1/08

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

The RSPCA says it is concerned about proposed new guidelines allowing baby kangaroos to be killed with a blow to the head if their mother has been shot. The Federal Department of Environment has released a proposed new national code of conduct for the humane shooting of kangaroos and wallabies for public comment. RSPCA spokesman Michael Linke says the organisation wants to see shooters given more training and for more research to be done into medical ways of euthanasing the young animals. "There are some reservations that we have around the method of killing of joeys," he said.

"We're hoping that the government will continue to fund research or look at ways of improving the euthanasia options to ensure that the humaneness and the welfare concerns of these animals are managed, before such time as they are actually killed." The animal welfare organisation says it submitted 14 recommendations to the Government as part of the national code of conduct review. "The important thing for people to remember is that the code is in the public consultation phase, so its important that the community comments and put their comments into the Federal Government, which RSPCA will continue to do," Mr Linke said. "There's still some areas of improvement that we would like to see and we'll continue to work with the Federal Government and people involved in crafting the code before its finalisation." *ABC

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

Backyard Wildlife The Backyard Wildlife website that has only been online for a week now has wildlife friendly backyards registered in every State except Tasmania and the NT. Thanks everyone for the kind words about the site. The whole idea of course is to encourage people to plant more natives in their backyards, balconies, rooftop gardens and patios. And to reward them for doing so. We've lots more to add to the site yet. http://www.australian-backyard-wildlife.com

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

Australia can export kangaroo products to California after a controversial ban on the sale of goods made from the marsupial's leather was lifted. The new legislation legalises the importing of kangaroo products harvested from non-endangered kangaroo species in Australia up to 2010 following an epic legal battle between animal rights organisations and sporting giant Adidas. Kangaroo hide is used to make the soccer boots made popular by sporting superstar David Beckham and other sports footwear used by professional athletes.

Adidas is the biggest industrial customer of the marsupial's leather and uses the hides to make the popular Predator cleats, which soccer players describe as lighter and more airy than competing brands. English soccer star Beckham, who plays for the Los Angeles Galaxy, has worn Predator cleats for several years as part of his multi-million dollar endorsement deal with the company. In 2005, Beckham announced his Predator cleats would be made of synthetic leather instead of with kangaroo hide following a public outcry.

In 1971, California banned the sale of products made from kangaroos and a host of other animals threatened with extinction, including elephants, sea otters and vicunas. In 1995, after the Australian government said the kangaroo populations had recovered, the US federal Fish and Wildlife Agency removed the animals from its threatened list and allowed for the importation of kangaroo leather. In 2003, legislation was introduced to repeal the kangaroo ban - with Adidas spending at least $A530,000 lobbying since then to allow the importation of kangaroo products to the state.

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

Kangaroo exclusion fences are almost finished at two Canberra Defence sites in a bid to stop further damage to grasslands through overpopulation and overgrazing. High fences are taking shape at the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station and the Majura Training Area to keep kangaroos out of certain areas, with Defence saying both sites continued to be adversely affected by overgrazing.

Defence initially applied for and was granted a licence by the ACT Government earlier this year to cull about 3000 kangaroos at the two sites, prompting an outcry from some animal welfare and activist groups. Defence had said the animals risked starvation and were damaging the environment. Government ecologists and consultants also claimed unsustainable kangaroo populations had degraded the grassland habitat of the endangered grassland earless dragon, striped legless lizard, hooded robin, brown treecreeper and a number of rare plant species. Defence has issued a tender for the cull of kangaroos at Belconnen, but has decided not to undertake culling at Majura for this season and will monitor the situation instead. Estimates have put more than 500 kangaroos at Belconnen and about 6000 at Majura.

A Defence spokesman said the tender was now closed and they were evaluating the proposals. The method for the reduction is expected to be darting and lethal injection after the Australian Federal Police raised concerns about the safety of shooting the animals with protesters threatening to disrupt the culls. The AFP was also worried Kaleen residents could be at risk if bullets went astray at Belconnen. Concern over darting has been raised in the Legislative Assembly, with the possibility of stray poisonous darts getting into the hands of the community. While there had been talk of relocating kangaroos at the Belconnen site, Defence confirmed there had been no movement to date.

They said the exclusion fences would be supported by a monitoring program to analyse the usefulness of this approach in protecting threatened species. The Defence spokesman said recent rainfall had had little effect on allowing the vegetation to recover, with high numbers of kangaroos still at both sites, but once the Majura fence was complete they expected to see some positive results. "Once the Majura Natural Temperate Grasslands exclusion fence is completed and kangaroos walked out of the grasslands, the vegetation is anticipated to be able to recover," he said. The Belconnen site continued to be under pressure. *Canberra Times

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

If you take a walk down Hungry Heads Osprey Drive on twilight, you will no doubt see kangaroos by the side of the road or underneath the macadamia trees.The kangaroo population in Hungry Head has steadily grown over the years and while most residents live in harmony with the kangaroos there have been a few incidents of aggresive behaviour.Jenny Farquar is a resident and macadamia farmer living on Osprey Drive she feels that lately these incidents have become more frequent. “The problem started three months ago when we got a few geese as pets. One day a kangaroo came out of the blue and jumped on a goose and chased it into the forest. Since then we’ve had a rogue kangaroo come after us and our geese.”

She is not alone. In 2006 her neighbours’ son was attacked by a kangaroo. He was hospitalised with deep cuts to his head and chest. Having only been in the area for two years Jenny Farquar is inexperienced in how to deal with the problem. “This is a new issue for me because I haven't lived on a farm all my life and I haven't been exposed to anything other than domestic pets. So I rang National Parks to get their advice.” In the case of aggressive and problem animals the National Parks and Wildlife Service will issue farmers with a permit to kill.

“I understand that I can go out and get a permit. But then I have to go out and buy a gun, I have to learn how to shoot it, and I have to learn how to shoot humanly.” “I certainly don't want to be the one to do that.” Jenny would like the NPWS to put in place a policy in relation to kangaroos. “They have a policy of managing wild dogs in the area why don't they have a policy in relation to kangaroos?” Lawrence Orell from NPWS was firm in his reply.

“We don't control kangaroos on private property.” “If there is a problem with kangaroos there is a process to deal with it and that ranges from them being destroyed through to ways for landholders to reduce the chances of kangaroos wanting to come to their property.” Kangaroos enjoy areas where there are shady trees and short green grass. By reducing the attractiveness of backyards residents should in effect reduce the number of kangaroos seen on their land. If that is not possible then exclusion fencing and building barriers that keep the kangaroos off the property is an expensive but effective strategy. If you have other suggestions for dealing with aggressive kangaroos we would love to read them. All comments welcome on our Guestbook. * ABC

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

Leading Australian scientist David Croft says the Federal Government is treating kangaroos as "a wildlife woodchip industry", and has failed to address basic animal welfare ethics in its new draft shooting code. Dr Croft is director of the University of NSW's arid zone research station. He said all codes of practice covering commercial use of animals should be strictly regulated and enforced to minimise suffering and cruelty. "These codes should never be about business as usual or letting a commercial industry off lightly in terms of animal welfare," he said. A new draft code for the humane killing of kangaroos and wallabies, posted last week on the Department of Environment website, has angered animal welfare groups by recommending pouch joeys be killed by "forcefully swinging" the head against a vehicle tow bar. It also advocates use of shotguns to kill joeys and young at-foot kangaroos those that have left the pouch but are still dependent on the mother.

Dr Croft said the draft code continued to ignore contentious welfare issues that had been debated for more than 20 years, and was "treating joeys in the same way as by-catch in a commercial fishery". "It is a joke. This code would definitely not stand up if it was subjected to the level of scrutiny by an animal welfare ethics committee that's required when scientists seek approval to use animals for research. "You can't have two different rules a stringent welfare code for scientists and a relaxed rule for commercial shooters. "If the Government seriously wants to improve the national code, there should be an appropriate course for shooters and strictly enforced animal welfare regulations. "If they seriously think a blow to the head is the most humane way to kill a kangaroo, then a special tool should be developed for shooters. "This is meant to be a professional industry, and it should be regulated and conducted in a professional manner." A ministerial working group was appointed four years ago to revise the draft code for shooting kangaroos and wallabies after a report by RSPCA Australia raised concerns about "barbaric" practices used to dispose of joeys when female kangaroos were killed. The RSPCA suggested 14 key recommendations, none of which are incorporated in the new draft code. Controversy over the national code has erupted as the NSW Government is considering opening a new area for commercial shooting, extending from the NSW-Queensland border to Victoria, along the eastern coast, and inland to Mudgee and Bathurst. This would take the number of commercial zones to 17, and extend harvesting across the entire state. A spokeswoman said the Government would announce its decision in March.

The Federal Government has denied claims published yesterday in The Canberra Times that sections of the 2006 State of Environment report were rewritten because they did not reflect government policy on kangaroo harvesting. The benchmark environment report, prepared for the Howard government by an independent scientific committee, suggested there was no data to back claims that kangaroo harvesting was sustainable and no reliable data on kangaroo populations or distribution. The report was later changed to state that kangaroo harvesting was sustainable and based on "robust data". In a written statement, Department of Environment deputy secretary Gerard Early said information in the report "was found to be incorrect and was immediately revised to include more accurate information on the sustainability of kangaroo harvesting".

"The database was changed because it was inaccurate, not in any way due to political pressure," Mr Early said. Chief executive of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia John Kelly said department officials told him the changes were "simply a result of two sections of the department not talking to each other". "It was only when the report came out that they realised it didn't contain the information the robust data we had supplied to the department over a period of around 30 years. "They changed it to make it more accurate." But senior government sources and scientists contracted to write sections of the report said the changes "caused a real stink" within the department "because they were seen as undermining the report's independence". *Canberra Times

*********************** The Kangaroo Industry Association says it is quite comfortable with proposed changes to the Federal Government's roo shooting laws. A revised National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies has been released for public comment. The code recommends a forceful blow to be applied to pouch joeys to kill them by destroying the brain and also allows for shotguns to be used to kill joeys. The Kangaroo Association's John Kelly says the industry has no reason to be ashamed of its animal welfare track record. "The code has been reviewed over a period of several years by some of the best scientists in the animal welfare field in both Australia and New Zealand," he said.

"The recommendations they've put in the code are best available practice to deliver the most humane options available." But Pat O'Brien from the Wildlife Protection Association says the draft code is a disgrace and recommends practices worse than Japan's scientific whaling program. "We've always said that it's worse than whaling," he said. "We're the only country in the World that deliberately kills a lactating species of wildlife and then kills the joey. "The whole thing is just scandalous, it's a disgrace and the Japanese are certainly justified in criticising us for it." *ABC 6/1/08

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

Australian animal rights groups are getting hot under the collar over proposed new government guidelines that recommend the killing of young kangaroos by picking them up and bashing their heads on the tow-bars of ‘utes’ (pick up trucks). The proposed code also suggests a close range shotgun blast may be appropriate (Reuters).

“I think we all love kangaroos. The problem is that there are too many,” a government spokesperson told Reuters. “What we are talking about here is responsible environmental management, because if we don’t do something you won’t have pastures and viable farming.” After the mothers have been shot, young kangaroos – or joeys – also have to be put down. Previous guidelines made no suggestions as to how this should be done for those that had left their mothers’ pouches but are still dependent on them (Canberra Times). The existing guidelines are here.

Even the recommended ways of putting them down can seem horrific (especially to city-bound media types whose main interaction with wildlife is in the supermarket meat isle). There’s very rarely a “nice” way of killing any animal. Maybe it’s no bad thing that we’re occasionally forced to confront this fact. *The Great Beyond Blog 7/1/08

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

Govt doctored roo cull report

An independent scientific assessment questioning the ecological sustainability of kangaroo harvesting was rewritten because it conflicted with government policy. The assessment was prepared for the Howard government's 2006 State of the Environment report a benchmark document intended to shape government environment policy for the next five years. It suggested there was no data to back claims that kangaroo harvesting was sustainable and no reliable data on kangaroo populations or distribution. The report was later changed to state specifically that kangaroo harvesting was sustainable and based on "robust data".

Animals Australia executive director Glenys Oogjes said the report was altered shortly after she contacted senior government officials to discuss the ethical and environmental implications of the assessment. She had pointed out the State of the Environment assessment did not support government policy on kangaroo harvesting or commercial cull quotas. Ms Oogjes said the subsequent changes to the report sparked protests from Department of Environment staff and protocols had since been introduced to prevent future political interference compromising the report's accuracy or independence. "We believe the report was changed after pressure from the minister and possibly interests within the commercial kangaroo industry. This is morally wrong it is meant to be an accurate, independent national report," she said. The report was prepared for the Howard government by an independent scientific committee led by University of Queensland agricultural scientist Professor Bob Beeton. It was launched in December 2006 by former environment minister Senator Ian Campbell, who claimed it was Australia's most comprehensive "environmental report card to date". The report concluded there was insufficient data to prove commercial kangaroo harvesting did not have a detrimental impact on kangaroo numbers. It also concluded there was no data on kangaroo population numbers, trends or distribution to convincingly suggest commercial harvesting was ecologically sustainable.

"Only data on numbers harvested are available. No data that would give an indication as to whether harvesting is sustainable, for example, data on population trends, population structure or distribution of harvested species, appear to be available," the report said. After Ms Oogjes contacted the department, the report was rewritten and now claims "at least 25 years of robust population survey data exists" and "commercial kangaroo harvesting in Australia has been sustainable for more than 25 years". It also claims reliable data is compiled by kangaroo shooters and kangaroo meat processors including "numbers killed, sex of animal and carcass weight" but much of this data "is not publicly accessible". According to a statement added to the State of the Environment report's website, these changes were made "to reflect the view of the Department of the Environment and Water Resources that kangaroo population trend data are adequate to conclude that kangaroo harvesting is sustainable". Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett was unavailable yesterday for comment. A national State of the Environment report is published every five years, and is required by federal law to provide "accurate up-to-date and accessible information" on environmental conditions, trends and pressures.

The Canberra Times understands as a result of these changes to the State of the Environment report, new rules were introduced to ensure changes to scientific data underpinning the report's assessments be subject to independent scrutiny, meet strict guidelines and be cleared by senior departmental officials. Ms Oogjes said Department of Environment staff were "demoralised by such blatant interference" and sought a ruling that any changes must be noted in the revised document as well as the reasons for the changes and a website link included to the document, pointing to the previous version. *Canberra Times 8/1/08