Okay, so which "conservation" groups actually support the commercial kangaroo kill?

We are often asked which conservation groups actually support the commercial kangaroo kill? Some information is below.

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

On the second of October 2007 Jon Dee from Planet Ark was interviewed on Nine's Today Show about kangaroo meat. It was hard to believe anyone could be so ignorant of the issues, and obviously he has an interest in the kangaroo Industry.

Nobody involved in environmental issues could be so ignorant, unless it was deliberate. He rabbitted on about how sustainable the Industry was, how healthy the Industry is, how the Heart Foundation supports the Industry (only because they were paid to) and one has to suspect Dee's motives as well.

The woman from Choice who was interviewed had obviously done her homework on eating kangaroo meat, but missed many opprtunities to raise critical issues such as health and sustainability.

In a letter to Nine Today Show, we questioned why the show had interviewed a couple of times now, people who knew little about the kangaroo killing Industry.

Anyway, we will be giving Planet Ark the big no! no! from now on. Clearly they have sold out to an Industry that has no environmental credibility at all....and that lack of credibility reflects back on Planet Ark as well.

Also in October Mark Wakeham from Greenpeace came out publicly and supported the commercial kangaroo Industry. Greenpeace have also gone into damage control, but its too late...the damage has been done, and because their media profile (quite undeservedly ) is so high, they have managed to unravel years of hard work by many wildlife groups.

While Greenpeace claim they were misrepresented in the media, it's very easy to say that. We'll have to wait and see just how hard they campaign for kangaroos in the future.

Many people have contacted Greenpeace demanding that they issue a media release opposing the commercial kangaroo kill. This fiasco has also weakened Greenpeace's campaign to stop whaling...the whalers are already asking why Greenpeace opposes whaling when they support the commercial kangaroo kill!

While Planet Ark have not responded in any way, they are a pretty irrelevant organisation anyway, only getting involved in very soft issues that are not controversial. As a fundraising Foundation that raises money from business's that wish to appear "green", their motives for doing anything are suspect anyway. They don't appear to have responded to any emails about this matter that they have been sent. Bottom line is that they both made the statements, now they have to live with them.

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

As some of our readers probably know, VIVA! International Voice for Animals has a legal action in the Supreme Court of California against Adidas. California is the only US State which does not allow wildlife body parts to be sold, and Adidas is flogging their kangaroo skin Predator footy boots there. The Commonwealth of Australia recently filed a brief in the lawsuit, in support of Adidias.

The Federal brief is full of the usual government misinformation and propaganda, but it does list some groups that support the commercial kangaroo kill, as an ‘example’ of community group support.

These are the Australian Veterinary Association, Australian Wildlife Management Society, Aust. Assn. of Veterinary Conservationists and Biology, and Ecological Society of Australia.

Of course these are all Industry groups, at least two set up specifically to provide support and government funding for wildlife Industries.

However the legal brief also names four community groups as supporting the kill.

These include Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, South Australia Conservation Council, and the Nature Conservation Society of SA.

I’ve had discussions over the years with the executive of three of these organisations, and in every case their kangaroo policy was up to thirty years old. When I’ve asked why don’t they review their policy, I was told it was too divisive and they were frightened of losing members. Doing nothing doesn’t rock any boats! All of these groups rely heavily on government funding. * Pat OBrien

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

A draft policy to support the commercial harvesting of native wildlife has opened a bitter split in the nation's peak environment body, the Australian Conservation Foundation. Former ACF director and founding member Dr Geoff Mosley has angrily described the organisation's new draft policy - Utilisation of Terrestrial Native Fauna - as "absolutely appalling, totally unnecessary and a betrayal of the ACF's origins". The Humane Society International, RSPCA and International Fund for Animal Welfare have also voiced concerns about ACF's planned change of policy direction.

ACF president Professor Ian Lowe issued a brief statement yesterday, saying the organisation had not yet arrived at a firm position on the draft policy and would not do so before organisation members had been given an opportunity to comment on it. An ACF media spokesman said, "It's not our policy to comment on internal organisation matters. This is an internal issue for members and council. It's not part of our public campaign work." The draft policy, which was passed by the foundation's governing council after heated debate, suggests "carefully managed consumptive use of wildlife" can be beneficial "at both population and landscape levels". It claims "harvest of native wildlife may provide an opportunity for the conservation of species and their natural habitats through economic incentives" but does not support commercial wildlife farming.

Dr Mosley, a member of the organisation's governing council, has been accused by other council members of deliberately leaking the draft document to wildlife conservation groups to bolster opposition. The draft policy has since been posted on the organisation's website for public comment. Dr Mosley told The Canberra Times, "This is a matter of conscience. It is a change of policy direction that sees kangaroos and other wildlife not as a by-product of culling, but a primary product. It is a betrayal of everything the ACF once stood for and fought to establish."

Formed in 1966 by CSIRO ecologist Francis Radcliffe with Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Garfield Barwick as its first president, the ACF strongly opposed commercial harvesting of kangaroos and other native species, arguing for tighter controls on the kangaroo-meat industry. Its former vice-president, the late Dr Peter Rawlinson, was a high-profile national spokesman, declaring there was "no legal or democratic mandate for a kangaroo industry" and commercial exploitation of wildlife "should never be contemplated".

The director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare's Asia-Pacific, Mick McIntyre, said he had "serious reservations" about the ACF's draft policy. "We are naturally very nervous about any suggestion of supporting killing for conservation benefits. We don't think there is enough evidence to suggest what those benefits could be," he said RSPCA chief scientist Dr Bidda Jones said the policy needed to specifically address welfare concerns, including the methods used to kill joeys during commercial harvesting of kangaroos. This involved decapitation or a blow to the head.

"We are not yet satisfied that joeys are killed humanely," she said. "We don't support the concept of sustainable use of wildlife because we are not sure it has a positive outcome." Humane Society director Michael Kennedy said the draft policy would "leave the door open for a potential range of new commercial enterprises" and, if adopted, would undermine the efforts of other environment groups to protect native wildlife. "Our organisation does not support commercial use of wildlife because history shows it is simply not sustainable. When you have a program based on supply and demand, the commercial aspects inevitably win."

University of NSW ecologist DrDaniel Ramp said the dynamics of kangaroo populations were frequently misinterpreted to suggest culling was required to keep numbers under control. "The argument that harvesting is a kinder way to control populations during drought is utter rubbish. These animals have evolved with a landscape that adjusts to their grazing pressures. They go through boom and bust cycles, that's part of what they do to survive," he said.

The Federal Government's recently issued Rural Industries Research and Development operational plan for 2006-07 lists more than 40 new animal-based industries, including captive breeding of native turtles and exports of kangaroo meat to China. A spokesman said emu farming was likely to increase due to the medicinal properties of emu oil, which was used by the cosmetic industry as an "anti-ageing" skin softener, and to treat arthritis and rheumatism. * Canberra Times

Note; The ACF has formerly had a good policy of opposition to wildlife Industries. Elements within the ACF are apparently trying to change the Policy.

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

Kangaroo slaughter sickens Greenpeace

“Greenpeace along with more than 35 Australian and American conservation groups, has committed itself to ending the kangaroo slaughter,” the magazine of Greenpeace USA, the Greenpeace Examiner, proclaimed in 1983. What happened to this commitment?

The Greenpeace Examiner article was written just after the US had reopened its market to kangaroo products. Bringing “the largest kangaroo importer world wide” back in business, “has caused the level of both legal and illegal killings to skyrocket,” it reported.

Greenpeace gave little credit to Australia’s kangaroo management program: “Some 3 million kangaroos are killed legally each year in Australia; illegal killings are thought to double that amount.” Greenpeace also reported that Australian conservationists disagreed with the government’s 1982 estimates of 19 million kangaroos; “they say there could be fewer than 10 million.”

And Greenpeace pointed out that if the US opened its trade doors on a permanent basis, “the result could be the depletion of all three species” targeted by the hunt. Well, the US trade doors are open on a permanent basis. But nothing more has been heard of the Greenpeace kangaroo campaign since the late ’80s – not even an announcement that it had come to an end. Perhaps improvements in Australian kangaroo management have convinced them to put it on hold?

Not according to an article by Greenpeace Denmark, submitted to the newspaper Informationen in 1986. This article made it clear that kangaroos deserve the same treatment as whales, and should not be subjected to commercial exploitation. Stated Greenpeace Denmark: “Greenpeace... announces its opposition to the commercial trade of kangaroo products on ecological and moral grounds ... We are against the kangaroo slaughter because ... it represents the extreme lack of respect shown in our management of nature and we, on a purely moral basis, find it nauseating.”

Is Greenpeace still nauseated by Australia’s kangaroo carnage? Only Greenpeace knows the answer, but they’re not telling!

Source: The High North publication, "The International Harpoon," July 3, 2000, published during the 52nd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Australia

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

The WA Conservation Council has always been opposed to the commercial kangaroo kill, but what's happened now? This report from WA News dated 7th March 2007.

****

Kangaroo shooters are earning up to $1000 a night as a growing local appetite for the native meat spreads to European diners and Russian sausage makers. While the pet meat trade soaks up more than half of the State's annual catch, WA's only roo meat exporter says production has increased four-fold to become a multi-million-dollar business in less than a decade.

About 330 professional shooters across WA make up an industry worth more than $25 million annually. WA Professional Kangaroo Shooters Association president Brian Fearn said prices were the highest he had seen and there was enough demand to quadruple the industry.

But supply was limited by strict government controls on catches, which industry supported to keep the roo population at a sustainable level.

Prices for the export roo meat market have jumped almost 50 per cent in just two years. The export meat now fetches more than 90¢ a kilo, or about $25 for an average-sized kangaroo. Shooters hunt the red kangaroos of the northern station country and western greys in the south. The annual quota for grey kangaroos has increased from 193,800 to 198,000 while the limit on red kangaroos dropped from 174,495 to 126,000.

Capel beef farmer Barry Bell earns a handy income from shooting to top up revenue from his farm. He said the roo population had escalated in the south. Gingin shooter Barry Chambers said a good night out could earn him more than $750 and in some cases $1000.

Phil Franolich, the co-owner of King River International, WA's only processor of kangaroo meat for human consumption, said the bulk of product was exported to Russia for sausage meat. European countries, including France, Belgium and Germany, preferred high-value cuts. Mr Fearn said the industry was aware that it was under constant scrutiny from animal welfare groups and it had worked hard with government authorities to improve professionalism. All professional shooters had to be licensed, pass a shooting accuracy test and operate under a code of conduct.

WA Conservation Council director Chris Tallentire said the need to cull kangaroos was an unfortunate result of the loss of natural habitat. Nutritious pastures and water in farm dams had contributed to a population explosion. "They should be killed as humanely as possible and we should make best use of their meat and leather," he said. "In the longer term we need to develop sustainable agricultural practices and the management of kangaroos could be a more environmentally sound means of sourcing meat and leather than farming sheep and cattle." ?????????

Department of Environment and Conservation principal zoologist Dr Peter Mawson said the quota this year for red kangaroos had been reduced because of drought conditions throughout western parts of the Pilbara, the Murchison-Gascoyne and large parts of the Nullarbor which had affected numbers. *

Ed Comment; What they havent said.

WA overshot their Western Grey qotas by 15000 animals in 2002. So much for their "strict" management. What they also havent said here is that not only is drought an issue, but a large unnatural kill occured of Red Kangaroos in WA two years ago. The government has not said what killed the kangaroos. A virus is suspected, but what of the health of those people who unwittingly ate virus infected kangaroo meat?



Back to kangaroo Home!