HIERARCHY OF BETRAYAL TO KANGAROOS

Events and people who have shaped and contributed to the betrayal.

OPENING STATEMENT " We should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organisation of society." ALBERT EINSTEIN

SENATOR ROBERT HILL, FEDERAL MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSEER OF ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA POLICY OF ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA

"Australian native wildlife is a renewable resource. If managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, wildlife can provide a perpetual source of economic benefits for all Australians"

SENATOR ROBERT HILL'S COMMITTEE FOR WILDLIFE USE Committee Member Nominating Agency Dr David Lindsay Chair ( Chosen by the Minister) Dr Per Christensen Institute of Foresters of Australia Dr Jeremy Burdon CSIRO Division of Plant Industry Dr Andrew Tribe Australian Veterinary Association Dr Brian Morley Council of Heads of Australian Botanic Gardens Dr Ian Pointer CSIRO Division of Fisheries Professor Marilyn Renfree Australian Academy of Science Professor Gordon Grigg Ecological Society of Australia Dr Tony Pople Australasian Wildlife Management Society Dr Ron West Australian Society for Fish Biology Dr Ian Suthers Australian Marine Sciences Association

While expert in their field, the scientists on Environment Minister ROBERT HILL's 'COMMITTEE FOR WILDLIFE USE' are biased in favour of the commercial harvesting of kangaroos and 3 of the scientists come from the same Queensland Institution while 2 of those are from the same Department and hold the same views.

There is no voice for the welfare of kangaroos, no voice for Tourism and related non-consumptive use, no voice to say that kangaroos should not be killed as a resource because they have intrinsic value and no voice to speak against the largest and fittest males being singled out by the commercial industry, leaving kangaroo populations a teetering pyramid. This disregard for important stakeholders like the $6 billion nature-based tourism industry, and breaches of ecological and scientific oversight are indeed very serious.

Further, there is considerable disquiet ( An AVA Representative serves on Robert Hills' WILDLIFE USE COMMITTEE ) ABOUT A CHANGE OF POLICY IN THE AVA which is:

" THE Australian Veterinary Association SUPPORTS KANGAROO HARVESTING IN AUSTRALIA which it does following a process of extensive consultation with a large number of stakeholders".

This letter appeared in the AVA Journal 'Aust Vet/Vol 78, No.5 May 2000; " Just who are these stakeholders? Are they the hundreds of thousands of tourists who fly on aircraft bearing the symbol which they hope to see in the wild, nature lovers, environmentalists, children who sleep with toys in their shape or people like myself who abhor the wholesale destruction of these magnificent creatures."

And yet another voice raised in protest at the change of Policy in the AVA: "The killing of kangaroos in the harvest is not culling"

"Kangaroos are killed ostensibly in the belief they compete with the pastoral industry for scarce resources. However, every attempt to demonstrate this scientifically has failed. In the "harvesting" large males are favoured for their skins and pet meat. This makes possible an increase in population since a greater proportion of breeding females is maintained by the available food resource. Four million kangaroos are killed each year of which probably one million or more are breeding females. In this population most have an in pouch joey and a very large proportion an ex pouch joey. The in pouch joeys are bashed to death by any available means. The ex pouch joeys are allowed to "escape". These joeys are still reliant on their mothers for supplementary feed from the teat, freedom from hypothermia, avoidance of predation, and behavioural guidance. They die cruelly in their hundreds of thousands each "harvest".

" OUR SUPPORT FOR SUCH A "CULL" IS INDEED "DISASTROUS". AND MOST OF THE KILLING FIELDS HAVE NO FUTURE FOR PASTORALISM AS SHOWN IN MY PAMPHLET "REANIMATING THE DEAD HEART". (Dr John Auty, May 2000)

To have such a stacked Committee making decisions about WILDLIFE USE is morally indefensible because it does not permit discussion about other ways we value wildlife , the non - consumptive uses, such as TOURISM that will provide jobs in the bush for rural Australia, and a voice to say that kangaroos are worth more ALIVE than dead.

GORDON GRIGG IS THE ARCHITECT FOR COMMERCIAL USE IN KANGAROO MANAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA. He wrote " COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS IN AUSTRALIA" updated in October 1999, which Environment Australia (EA) sends out as its official document. He wrote the 'Australasian Wildlife Management Society' ( AWMS) ' Paper at the back of "Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos" . (1999) Tony Pople, Grigg's former student represents the AWMS on the Minister Robert Hill's WILDLIFE USE Committee)

Incredulously, Professor GORDON GRIGG is still asking the same question: "WHY ARE KANGAROOS STILL THE VILLAINS (AND NOT THE SAVIOUR?) " ( 20 May, 2000 at the Australian, Museum, with Michael Archer) GRIGG does not understand that for kangaroos to be the saviour of this fragile continent, he must recognise, as the late Dr PETER RAWLINSON did, and others do, that kangaroos have intrinsic value. That the way to the future is to stop the killing and value kangaroos for their own sake…that their non-consumptive use is the only way, through Tourism (David Croft) and "Reanimating the Dead Heart."(John Auty)

Michael Kennedy, Director of Humane Society International said; "Wildlife of course can be utilised for the benefit of all Australians but this can only be achieved appropriately through non-consumptive means"….

Kangaroos cannot be treated as a pest and/or killed as a resource and then expect that farmers and land holders will have any respect for them, except to want them killed.

Further, the children of Australia are being taught by the example of their parents that kangaroos have NO VALUE unless they are killed and dead on a plate as meat or dead for pet food to feed the dogs and cats or turned into a product made from their skins.

Australian children see the brutality and the murder of these beautiful, harmless animals which desensitises them and they grow up just like their parents, to hate kangaroos. KILLING KANGAROOS IS GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED CRUELTY! This is the reason there are so many brutal killings by children in the bush and when people shake their heads in amazement and wonder why, the question must be asked, why not? This is what their parents do!

REPLACING BEEF/CATTLE WITH KANGAROOS IS ECONOMICALLY UNVIABLE!!! Grigg knows that to replace cattle and sheep with kangaroos is economically unviable!!!. Grigg exacerbates the lie when he says in 'New Scientist' (12.9.1998) :

"Kangaroos should be regarded as a resource…It's not inconceivable that one day pastoralists will find that the kangaroos, the animal they have long detested, has more economic value than sheep." (1998) and this is Robert Hill's POLICY!!!

GRIGG DISREGARDS THE FINDINGS OF QUEENSLAND'S PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIST, J.R Peter Hardman: 'The WILD HARVEST AND MARKETING OF KANGAROOS'- 'A Case Study of the profitability of kangaroos Compared With Sheep/ Beef in Queensland ' (1996) which concludes: "SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF LAND DEGRADATION WILL REQUIRE OTHER METHODS AND APPROACHES. IN SUMMARY, IT IS MOST UNLIKELY TO BE DONE BY REPLACING SHEEP/BEEF WITH KANGAROO HARVESTING." So Gordon Grigg continues to promote the lie.

LUNNEY AND GRIGG 'Conservation Through Sustainable Use' Centre for Conservation Biology (University of Queensland) : 'There is a long standing public perception that kangaroos cause less damage than sheep and other hoofed exotic herbivores' (1995) So to counteract this they wrote; · 'The need for land holders to have some sort of proprietary rights over the resource' (kangaroos) · 'the need for a reduced and less prescriptive role of government in regulation of the industry (kangaroo) · a recognition of the importance of a return to land holders as stakeholders in kangaroo matters ' · ' the need for support by government in the educative process both nationally and internationally to combat the negatives that have been traditionally associated with kangaroo harvest, In other words, the need for kangaroo management in a Total Grazing Pressure context needs to be promoted…'

They speak of Total Grazing Pressure and they demonstrate their 'scientific' bias against the kangaroo when they fail to call for the removal of the sheep, cattle, goats, rabbits and ALL the other feral animals WHICH CAUSE LAND DEGRADATION… NOT KANGAROOS!!! And farmers continue to degrade the land.

We are talking about a species of wildlife, the kangaroo, that is brutally killed every night in the outback, even though it is NOT a pest, it is killed to provide an economic benefit to failed farmers and land holders who demand they have a right to do whatever they like to kangaroos. There is NO REQUIREMENT to remove the real PEST animals.

Kangaroos are being punished for something they have not done, did not do and will not do in the future…DEGRADE THE LAND!!! The rate of uncontrolled land clearing in GRIGGS' Queensland demonstrates how out of control the whole situation is and that kangaroos are the scapegoat. Farmers believe it is their right to kill kangaroos.

In another Paper by TONY POPLE (with STEVE Mc LEOD, NSW Agriculture) 'Kangaroo Management and the Sustainable Use of Rangelands ' (September 1998) 'The paper reviews the scientific reasoning behind the commercial harvesting of kangaroos'. "Many argue that kangaroos are agents of land degradation, hamper vegetation regeneration and compete with domestic stock, but the evidence to support these views is often lacking."

KANGAROOS DO NOT DEGRADE THE LAND!!! SHEEP, CATTLE, GOATS, RABBITS & OTHER FERAL ANIMALS DO!!!

GORDON GRIGG AND TONY POPLE MAKE 40 REFERENCES THAT KANGAROOS ARE PESTS IN "COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF KANGAROOS" "Harvesting will invariably involve some injuries and protracted deaths. To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density, it first must be manipulated in some way to promote the rate of increase. (e.g. reduce it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplement its resources)"

"Rates of harvest may be raised to levels at which they can cause the extinction of the populations (Arguments will be confounded when there are non-consumptive values attached to the resource such as for Tourism)."- (Grigg & Pople)

DR DAVID CROFT UNSW IS THE VOICE FOR TOURISM AND NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE OF KANGAROOS This is GRIGG'S ACHILLES HEEL!!!…THE NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE OF WILDLIFE

CROFT'S VISION FOR TOURISM and DR JOHN AUTY'S ":REANIMATING THE DEAD HEART" MEANS RECOVERY FOR AUSTRALIA.( "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!" )

Kangaroos are worth more alive than dead. This confounds Grigg's whole premise of turning them into a resource (from a pest).Grigg should see that his way will never work.He should see that KANGAROO killing is out of control and that the only way for the future is to promote the non-consumptive use of wildlife (kangaroos.)

In 1998 Gordon Grigg, completed 21 years of paid work for the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service as reported in : 'New Scientist' 12/9/1998 Grigg said: "Australia has 30 million kangaroos, give or take five million"

" Grigg strongly queries whether the cull is needed for its stated purpose - to protect sheep grazing land from the ravages caused by large numbers of kangaroos. If anything, according to the observations made by the team, SHEEP DAMAGE THE LAND MORE THAN THE KANGAROOS. " AND "For example, in an area east of Lake Frome, where kangaroo densities are as high as 50 per square kilometre and sheep numbers are comparatively low, the land is not degraded. It is in other places where sheep numbers are high and kangaroo numbers are low" (GRIGG)

Tony Pople ABOUT LAND DEGRADATION March 11/12, 1999, Meeting of the NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee in Dubbo " ..based on historical records in South Australia, recruitment and regeneration of shrubs and trees is negatively associated with the intensity of sheep grazing. "

So both Professor Gordon Grigg and Tony Pople recognise that SHEEP are the real culprits of land degradation but they continue to offer up KANGAROOS AS THE SACRIFICIAL LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER and sheep continue to degrade the land.

Another of Gordon Grigg's colleagues , PETER ALEXANDER, South Australia accuses kangaroos of "directly preventing the regeneration of native plants": Bev Selway from SA answers : " Native flora and fauna have evolved over millions of years to compliment each other and yet kangaroos are still blamed for land degradation. Native animals actually help to propagate much of the native vegetation and are therefore a "natural TREES FOR LIFE" mobile project in themselves. WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT BY SHEEP, CATTLE AND FERAL ANIMALS!!! No!, Kangaroos are always blamed."

So the bottom line here is the worry about making money out of kangaroos rather than about stopping the commercial kangaroo industry and helping the land. Remember that Steve Mc Leod completed a six and a half year study which concluded that sheep are the dominant competitor and that KANGAROOS ARE DISADVANTAGED BY SHEEP. (1996)

MICHAEL ARCHER IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY AND CONTINUES THE LIE Michael Archer, Director of the Australian Museum actually has Premier Bob Carr's support. Archer tells the lie "You can get filthy stinking rich killing kangaroos"… But Archer does not stop there, he says that his philosophy even extends to koalas…

The industry kills the biggest Red Kangaroos for their skins and hide and they kill the young one to two year old Red Kangaroos for the human meat trade. THE RED KANGAROOS ARE THE PREFERRED SPECIES OF KANGAROOS BY COMMERCIAL SHOOTERS. ( NSW KMAC Meeting).

Dr David Croft says in the Chapter "When Big is Beautiful: Some Consequences of Bias in Kangaroos: ( "The kangaroo BETRAYED!" ) ; "Thus a clamour of concerned voices has been raised as to whether the imposition of a strong artificial selective force (the practices of the commercial kangaroo industry) is compatible with the long-term conservation of kangaroos across their range." SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED?"

"The short answer is that we know insufficient about the genetics of the species in the commercial harvest to determine whether appropriate genetic diversity is being conserved. If a 'good' gene is being eliminated in the cull then we would not know until those individuals missing it are tested by some vagary in their environment and found wanting. Even so our knowledge of kangaroo mating systems and evolutionary theory (especially mate choice and sexual selection ) prompt some alarm."

" Could the commercial harvest of kangaroos eliminate 'good genes' in the populations? Some would argue that a cull of 15-20% should leave plenty of copies of 'good genes' in the population. True, if the cull selected targets at random, but clearly this is not the case. The cull may effectively take close to 100% of large males. We do not know what is happening because this is not a priority of the kangaroo management programs but we should be nervous!" ("The kangaroo BETRAYED!")

'Sustained yield presupposes that animals are removed from the herd according to the needs of the herd for the presence of mature males and females sufficient to ensure reproduction rates. There is no accuracy in counts relating to male/female ratios or age in the animals culled. There is shooter preference for mature males and the kill of this class may be as high as 80%. ( "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!")

DOUG REILLY, MACROPOD EXPERT FROM S.A. IN "The Kangaroo BETRAYED" " In any wild animal if you disrupt in a short period of time the normal reproduction processes that have evolved over tens of thousands of years you are in danger of putting the species at risk. Precedents have been set in other parts of the world where large populations of a species( seals, bison, wolves etc.) have faced extinction after widespread and destructive 'culling' programs. Many of these species suffered incursion of exotic bacteria and viruses when their populations contained a critical and unsustainable gene pool."

"TO BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE THE LARGEST WILDLIFE SLAUGHTER IN THE WORLD TODAY IT WAS NECESSARY TO UNDERTAKE A LONG AND SUSTAINED PROGRAM OF MISINFORMATION WITHIN AUSTRALIA TO CONVINCE THE COMMUNITY THAT THESE ANIMALS ARE IN PLAGUE PROPORTIONS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AREAS OF AUSTRALIA."

ABC Science Commentator Robyn Williams said in 1987 ; "The male will often try for years to achieve a mating. Only when, for reasons as yet unknown, he gets a sudden spurt in growth to become a huge muscular alpha male, does his courting succeed. He spends the season in frenzied coupling. Then just as suddenly, he becomes worn out and dies. Another male takes his turn"

"There appears to be no end to the fascination of these unique beasts. Perhaps we should think of this before we blast them from the landscape."

SENATOR HILL CHALLENGES NATURAL SELECTION IN KILLING KANGAROOS " You express concern that the harvesting of kangaroos is destroying the biological fitness and genetic diversity of kangaroo populations, and state you have evidence for this. I would strongly urge you to provide any scientific evidence you have on this subject to my Department." (letter dated May 5, 1998) AND

" As you have not provided evidence that harvesting of kangaroos is destroying the biological fitness and genetic diversity of the species, I am unable to make any further comment on this issue. " (6 September 1999)

A COPY OF "THE KANGAROO BETRAYED!" WAS SENT TO SENATOR ROBERT HILL. Anne- Marie Delahunt, commenting for Senator Hill, said, 11 January, 2000:

" HOWEVER, THE MINISTER CAN NOT AGREE WITH MANY OF THE BOOK'S CONCLUSIONS, AS THE KANGAROO HARVEST IS ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED AND THE HARVEST IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF THE SPECIES"

IS THE AUSTRALIAN QUARANTINE AND INSPECTION SERVICE CORRUPT? Dr John Auty says it is, " Kangaroo killing corrupts all who come into contact with it. This is true for all elements including meat hygienists"

'EXPORT OF GAME MEATS' By Eddie Andriessen ( November 5, 1998 ) Minutes of the South Australian Kangaroo Management Program Public Meeting

"My primary responsibility is ensuring that export requirements are met" "My concern in developing a very important market for roo meat is Europe" "We've compared them against the Australian Standard and mainly looked at MACRO'S (Ray and Rita Borda's) chiller boxes but also a few other processor's. There is not a single chiller box up to standard out of the 15 we looked at. The problem with most of them is they're not clean or cleanable…." Some of the things we found: · Flies and fly control. A big incidence of fly - struck meat going down to Adelaide. It's not surprising when there are trucks with holes in the side of them and flies buzzing around inside the truck when carcasses are being loaded in the middle of the day. · Floors. Airflow floors are not being cleaned thoroughly and there's still congealed blood and muck. · Drainage. Most of the dirty water is washed out from the front with the bones and everything else. They're supposed to be directly plumbed to a drain. · Hand wash basin. There were two or three wash basins out of the 15. · No connection to portable water. · Only one box had chemicals for cleaning. · Flaps to control flies not being used. · SURROUNDS. THERE WERE ROO FEET STILL THERE FROM TWO YEARS AGO. These areas are supposed to be kept clean and tidy.

AQIS and Wildlife Authorities in Australia condemned VIVA! and Juliet Gellatley. The AQIS officials said that kangaroo meat was obtained under the strictest guidelines that kangaroo meat was hygienic and healthy. It is clear that they are not being truthful with the Australian public about the filthy conditions under which kangaroo meat is obtained. THE ABOVE NOVEMBER 1998 MEETING OF SOUTH AUSTRALIAN KANGAROO MANAGEMENT TOOK PLACE FOLLOWING VIVA'S VISIT TO AUSTRALIA!

ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA (EA) PART OF THE CONSPIRACY

TOM KAVENEY(1998) : KANGAROO INDUSTRY REGULATION - DISCUSSION PAPER. " However, EA does not intend to charge (the costs of permits and authorities of administering the Wildlife Protection Act) at a full cost recovery rate 'in recognition of the community service component of kangaroo management "

Glenys Oogjes ,Director of Animals Australia; " As you will know from previous submissions to EA, I wish to reiterate that we oppose kangaroo killing (and therefore the commercial kangaroo industry) primarily on the grounds of cruelty and suffering caused to a significant number of animals shot or wounded, to others in their mob, and particularly to dependent joeys whose mother's are killed. Further we do not accept that our native kangaroo is a 'pest' to farming interests given that these activities occur on the kangaroo's natural range, nor that these species should be considered a 'renewable biological resource', as expressed in the 'aims' of the State Management Programs." (8 April, 1998)

" I take this opportunity to again emphasise our strong view that Environment Australia, and thus the Australian people, must not subsidise the commercial kangaroo industry. As stated, the suggestion that the industry provides a 'community service' is totally rejected. Indeed the existence of the commercial kangaroo industry degrades us all."

And LINDY STACKER FOR "AUSTRALIANS AGAINST COMMERCIALISATION OF WILDLIFE" wrote: "As stated in your opening paragraph, two meetings were held between Officers of EA (both State and Federal levels) and the Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and representatives of the kangaroo industry in late 1996. It is interesting to note that no conservation/ animal welfare groups were invited to those important meetings to discuss changes in relation to regulations of the export market of kangaroo skins and meat." "…the general aim of the meetings was to discuss ways in which the regulation of the kangaroo industry could be enhanced to better accommodate the needs of industry" - this might indicate why representatives from the environmental/ animal welfare lobby, were not included." (27th February, 1998)

BIASED, RURAL BASED SENATE INQUIRY INTO COMMERCIAL USE OF WILDLIFE, CHAIRED BY JOHN WOODLEY SENATOR FROM QUEENSLAND. MOST AUSTRALIANS DO NOT SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL USE OF WILDLIFE Environment Australia's response tabled in Parliament 8th December, 1999

ROBERT HILL USES BIASED SENATE REPORT TO SUPPORT KANGAROO HARVEST

Responding to a propaganda piece by Dr Graeme Webb which appeared in the Canberra Times, Michael Kennedy condemns Webb by saying that he makes great play of the outcomes of the Senate Inquiry (RURAL) into "Commercial Use of Australian Native Wildlife" ( June 1998).

" The conservative and biologically inept nature of the recommendations from a Committee more concerned with rural economics than wildlife were disturbing but not surprising and brought a speedy and vigorous Minority Report from Australian Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett who noted the "misreading of the evidence and of the breadth and nature of community concerns with the commercial use of wildlife", that "the majority of submissions that the Committee received were opposed to any commercial use of Australia's wildlife", and that "most of the evidence and submissions in favour of commercialisation were driven by potential economic gains".

SOUTH AUSTRALIA A MAJOR CONCERN There is collusion between ROBERT HILL'S Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use & PETER ALEXANDER, in order to obtain higher kangaroo kill 2000 Quotas for South Australia. PETER ALEXANDER IN HIS SOUTH AUSTRALIA QUOTAS 2000 DOCUMENT; "South Australia has consistently argued for and requested higher kangaroo harvesting quotas on the grounds of seeking to contribute to a broadscale effort to improve land condition. During 1999 an agreement was reached with Commonwealth Government's Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use" So Peter Alexander got permission to kill more kangaroos in South Australia from the WILDLIFE USE COMMITTEE.

No one is being told about what is happening in SA. Killing kangaroos is not being debated and the Red Kangaroo population is severely under threat. Peter Alexander wants to reduce the Red Kangaroo population to between 2-5 kangaroos per square kilometre and ideally to 2 Red Kangaroos per square kilometre; that would reduce the population from 1.4 million to just 600,000 Red Kangaroos

"Note that SA has two (2) quotas. Sustainable Use (SU) quota and the Experimental Land Management (ELM) quota. "Peter Alexander and Peter Last show the utter disregard South Australia has for kangaroos:"

" When estimating kangaroo populations all areas are counted, including National Parks so that the numbers appear high and government can convince themselves and the Australian community that kangaroos are on a par with blowflies. Many people on the land have no tolerance for kangaroos and do not want to share this land with its native fauna. For example, farmers on the west coast of SA would like to eradicate wombats."

" Western Greys have increased by 121% in the Kingoonya region between 1998 and 1999. Is this really possible?"

" The density table shows that Greys have increased from 1.1 to 2.2 density. Perhaps they are building up their numbers on paper so they can justify a quota next year. How did they increase by 121%? Did bucks have joeys? Did all does have twins? No wonder Last and Alexander don't want anyone referring to their paper.(refer to copyright on cover page) "

"Red Kangaroos in the Nackara and West region and Broughten region have decreased by around 65% , 1998 and 1999, and still if you look at the table. They have imposed a 23% quota for 2000. "

1) "Regional Summaries in SA 2000 Quotas) show some distressing figures and show some outright dishonesty. I have made notes and added together the 2 quotas to show the total quota for regions."

· Table 1, page 5 shows a decrease of around 60 % in density · Table 2 page 5 shows a decrease of around 30% in numbers which are supposedly 13,000. If density decreases by 60% then shouldn't numbers also decrease by 60% · Note also in this table that they have conveniently left out the % change. · Page 11 states that numbers are 30,000 and has placed a 20% quota on these numbers. However, 20% of 30,000 is 6000. They have broken it into the 2 Quotas, and to round figures off have added 1,000. SU quota 15% of 30,000 = 4,500. They conveniently rounded it up to 5,000 ELM quota 5% of 30,000 = 1,500. They conveniently rounded it up to 2,000

In this way they change the 6,000 to 7,000. However, let's not forget that the original count on page 5 is 13,000 and not 30,000 and also that if we take the density decrease of 60% then this is really what is happening. Density decreased by 60%. Numbers decreased by 60%, 1998 = 21,000 minus 60% therefore numbers for 1999 should have been 8,400. The quota for the year 2000 has been set at 7000. 8, 400 - 7,000 1,400 POPULATION LEFT " " LAST AND ALEXANDER, you have lots of explaining to do!!! " ( Bev Selway)

ANIMAL WELFARE AND THE 'HUMANE' SHOOTING OF KANGAROOS "At the end of the day, I'm not going to stand and argue about whether head shooting or body shooting is not an acceptable form of destruction for a wild animal. Head shooting must be the way to go. If by chance you happen to only injure the animal, and you have to body shoot it, then there's probably only one choice but to leave it there. You'll have to record you've shot it but you'll have to leave it there because we do not want to see it in the processing works." ( AQIS Meat Inspection Eddie Andriessen)

Cruelty is out of sight and out of mind in the Australian outback. It is an act of cruelty in itself to attack a nocturnal animal with a high powered spotlight while it is peacefully grazing; but this stress prone animal is never really peacefully grazing as long as it knows that danger lurks.. .. Kangaroos are ever alert listening for danger.

The shooters and the industry will tell you that this is a good thing, 'peacefully grazing one minute, dead the next' but it is not peaceful. The panic when it hears the truck approaching, the terror when they try to flee and then stop and look, with their stress prone bodies racked with sheer panic ; and the number of little joeys that escape into the bush to die a lingering death with out their dead mothers means that this filthy, impossible to control kangaroo killing industry will never ever be accepted in those parts of society that are civilised.

KANGAROO KILLING INDUSTRY IS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY

The kangaroo industry criss crosses the fragile outback terrain night after night disturbing the small ground dwelling native animals fauna and flora. When the kangaroos are eviscerated (gutted)in the field, the guts remain to feed the feral animals.

"It is a simple matter of first principles that any species which is a scavenger on carcasses will be favoured by abandonment of meat and offal in the field. Depending on the end product kangaroo shooters leave in the field guts, portions of kangaroo, carcasses of in pouch joeys, and live ex pouch joeys which die or are hunted by predators. Species which are free fed in this manner include feral pigs, cats, dogs, and foxes. When shooters move on, these species must turn to predation on native and domestic animals." So for the industry to say it is environmentally friendly is wrong.

"Anyone who knows anything about kangaroo shooters and shooting knows that shooters drive off road. To do otherwise is to fail to shoot their quota. This has two negative outcomes: · Nocturnal animals are disturbed, an important negative when species are under pressure · And erosion is caused in fragile landscapes such as sandy rises."

CHEMICAL SPRAYING FOR LOCUSTS/ GRASSHOPPERS ( AND OTHER SPRAYING) IN KANGAROO HARVESTING AREAS (Funded by the SA Government-Phil Warren)

Chemicals are poison. When sprays are used they poison the grass and kangaroos eat the grass so the kangaroos provide meat that is not free from chemicals or poisons.

In South Australia, locusts have been sprayed regularly over a period of time but 1998 is the first year grasshoppers have been sprayed. Some markets have a nil tolerance towards chemical residue found in meat carcasses. Kangaroos eat poisoned grass.

BIASED SCIENTISTS WHO SUPPORT GRIGG'S KANGAROO KILLING REGIMEN DR RON HACKER NSW AGRICULTURE TRANGIE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

*AIM: REDUCE KANGAROO POPULATIONS ACROSS THEIR NATURAL RANGE MURRAY DARLING COMMISSION COMMITTEE(MDCC) CHAIRMAN; RON HACKER

Dr David Freudenberger - ACT- Representing the CSIRO on NSW MDCC

Dr George Wilson, ACT, -paid private Consultant, recruited for NSW MDCC

Dr Tony Bigwood Canberra EA- Environment Australia, recruited for NSW MDCC

Peter Alexander SA - Recruited for NSW MDCC

John Kelly Tasmania KIAA Cited for cruelty to possums and wallabies (ABC) ABC won Right of Appeal to High Court of AUSTRALIA VS. JOHN KELLY (June 2000)

Dr Tony Pople Queensland Recruited for Ron hacker's NSW Committee

Dr Steve Mc Leod NSW Agriculture - Supports kangaroo harvesting despite evidence from his 6 and a half year study which says that kangaroos are disadvantaged by sheep

Industry, Shooters, Pastoralists, Farmers, Graziers, Cullers (HACKERS COMMITTEE)

' Evaluating Alternative Management Strategies for Kangaroos in the Murray-Darling Basin ' * AIM ; "To reduce kangaroo populations to levels that are TOLERABLE for land holders and is one of the most important natural resource management issues in the country today - the management of kangaroo populations. .." ( CHAIRMAN HACKER)

WHY IS AGRICULTURE INVOLVING ITSELF IN KANGAROO HARVESTING? KANGAROO MANAGEMENT BELONGS WITH THE NATIONAL PARKS & WILDLIFE

The above is an indication of political and scientific interference. It tells of the lies and extent that the Authorities will go, in order to manipulate the system and kangaroo populations so they can kill more and more kangaroos; and that kangaroo harvesting is having a detrimental and deleterious effect on kangaroo populations and their future long term survival. It is affecting the behaviour of Australia's children and the very soul and psyche of Australia.

The NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE OF KANGAROOS IS THE WAY TO THE FUTURE AND THE COMMERCIAL KANGAROO KILLING INDUSTRY MUST END…

Footnote: Jennice Kersh has been appointed by SOCOG to establish a 200 seat capacity restaurant to serve kangaroo meat at the Olympic Games, supplied by MACRO MEATS (RAY and RITA BORDA South Australia) who AQIS Inspector Eddie Andriessen said no chiller box up to standard, that was clean or cleanable, there were flies, no chemicals for cleaning, and roo feet from two years ago ………

Maryland Wilson 2001 President, Australian Wildlife Protection Council EDITOR; "The Kangaroo BETRAYED!" NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee