Rangeland kangaroos - a world-class wildlife experience!
David Croft, School of Biological Science, UNSW, Sydney NSW 2052
He has lived through at least one drought and one flood, he has probably travelled over 200 km across the outback, from the moment he left his mother’s pouch he practiced and perfected his fighting skills and battled his way to the top over ten years. What value do we place on him? - $1.50 a Kilo! Introduction Culling for pest mitigation, harvesting for consumption and free-range 'farming' of the arid-zone kangaroos are promoted and debated as means to sustain or partially replace pastoralism in the rangelands. Lost in this debate is any appreciation of large mobs of kangaroos as one of the great wildlife experiences that the Australian outback has to offer both domestic and international tourists. I question whether the focus on killing kangaroos, for whatever culinary cause, has turned us away from realising their tourist potential because it undervalues the intrinsic qualities of the kangaroo as a living, behaving, biological entity. I thus place another sign at the 'crossroads in kangaroo politics' (Grigg 1997) which points to big mobs of big reds as one of the world's great wildlife experiences. In southern Africa game-viewing is much more valuable than game-farming or cattle/sheep farming (eg. Muir 1987). The vast national parks such as Kruger, Kalahari Gemsbok, Etosha, Chobe, the Okavango Delta, and Hwange have proved to be the major assets, along with mining, of southern Africa. Likewise Stafford Smith (1994) has shown that the value of mining and tourism in the Australian rangelands far outstrips traditional enterprises in pastoralism and the relatively paltry income from the current 'kangaroo industry'. International nature-based tourism had a vlaue to Australia of $6.6 billion in 1995 (Blamey & Hatch 1998). More than half this expenditure was in national parks. Inbound tourists express a clear interest in the natural history of Australia with 50% of the 3.4 million visitors in 1995 visiting a national/state park, reserve or cave. Outback safaris represented 3% of inbound tourist activity but such tourists spent twice the average per capita ($343 million in total in 1995) and considerably more than in other high-profile outdoor activities such as scuba.
Fig. 1. Value of rangeland commodities (1991-2) after Stafford-Smith (1994). Value for the kangaroo industry derived from Ramsay(1994). The red, grey and hill kangaroos combined number over 20 million and thus are one of the world's largest remaining populations of large wild terrestrial mammals. Yet many an outback tourist will lament that of the few kangaroos he/she saw, the majority were road kills. When these tourists seek a wild experience with kangaroos they often find members of rural communities discouraging, as the latter's value of kangaroos is little more than as an unwelcome road hazard. We have certainly effectively marketed kangaroos as a faunal symbol. It prominently continues to grace the tail of Qantas planes. In any large coastal and inland city you can meet 'Skippy' and pet and feed a kangaroo in one of the many fauna parks, or even play golf with him or her. Thus we can assure any tourist an opportunity to see a kangaroo. But where is the promotion of a great wildlife experience in the vast wilderness of the Australian outback? The documentary, 'Faces in the Mob', about the fascinating and dramatic lives of Eastern Grey Kangaroos won more than 30 international awards including an Emmy. The great wildlife documentary production companies in the BBC, National Geographic and the Discovery Channel have sent crews into the outback in pursuit of emulating this success. Have we capitalised on this focus on our wildlife assets? Do we have 'Faces in the Mob' tours? No, we continue with an apparent obsession with the consumptive use of kangaroos along with the notion that they are always too numerous. The end result of this is that we become something of an international pariah with our policies on kangaroo management constantly under attack by lobby groups in North America and Europe. In the clamour, the supposed salvation of the rangelands, kangaroo as high-quality game meat, is withdrawn from the supermarket shelves. I strongly believe that even if our kangaroo management strategies are well researched and scientifically based, we will never sell them internationally unless: · we can unequivocally demonstrate that we have secure populations in large conservation areas, · we value these amongst the country's greatest assets, · we promote these to the domestic and international tourist as the very best of wildlife experiences.
If we achieve this through high value tourism, then in contrast to current consumptive use of kangaroos: · we recognise the intrinsic qualities of kangaroos and Australia's wildlife heritage · large populations of kangaroos are both desirable and valuable · the economic value of tourism encourages and finances maintenance and restoration of biodiversity · the economic activity creates more jobs for both sexes in rural communities. Game viewing in southern Africa - a model? We can look to countries such as South Africa, Namibia or Botswana to find the best practices in the development of wildlife based tourism modelled on safari-style game viewing. I focus on these countries since they have similar arid landscapes in the Kalahari, Etosha and Makgadikgadi Pan national parks, respectively; they are in the same latitudes with similar climates to much of Australia, and they are likely our most significant competitors in this segment of the tourist market. I will first contrast the poor promotion and development of 'game-viewing' as a wildlife experience in Australia by comparing Sturt National Park in western NSW to the Kalahari-Gemsbok Park in South Africa/Botswana. I will then suggest ways in which we could develop our own safari-like experience amidst mobs of roos rather than Springbok, Gemsbok or Wildebeest and thus also add substantial value to our wildlife. The Kalahari Gemsbok National Park is a joint venture between the parks and wildlife authorities of South Africa and Botswana but the South African Parks Board manages most of the tourist activity. The park was proclaimed in 1931, covers 2,766,100 ha, and is located 1150 km from Johannesburg and 1250 km from Cape Town. The major regional centre is Upington, 250 km south of the park entrance, along 190 km of sealed and 60 km of gravel road. Sturt National Park was gazetted in 1975, covers 310,364 ha, and is managed by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. Sturt is 1400 km for Sydney, 1130 km from Melbourne and 330 km from the major regional centre of Broken Hill along a road which is sealed for about 40% of its length. The climate and landscape of both parks are very similar with low rainfall, hot summers, ephemeral rivers, dune fields, pans and stony plains. I have examined the content of sites on the World Wide Web marketing the tourist activity in these two parks, and I invite the reader to follow the links given below. This content should be indicative of, if not based on, other advertising media. The South African National Parks Board site for the Kalahari Gemsbok National park (http://www.parks-sa.co.za/kalahari/) has strong faunal symbols (meerkats, lions, Gemsbok), promotes values of fauna and landscape and provides online booking of accommodation and links to regional and tourist marketing sites. The NSW NPWS site for Sturt National Park (http://www.npws.nsw.gov.au/parks/outback/out006.html) is graphically elegant but has no appropriate faunal symbol, is obscure as to the location of the park, makes little of its abundant population of red kangaroos (the reason the park was created!) and discourages visitation in summer. It has no links to regional or tourist marketing sites. Further examination of regional and tourist marketing sites show that the Kalahari Gemsbok Park is strongly marketed with prominent faunal symbols as a 'breathtaking' experience and one of the great wildlife experiences of Africa. In contrast, Sturt National Park is generally marketed with a paraphrase of the NPWS material and no appropriate faunal symbol such as a red kangaroo (one site simply shows the NPWS office in Tibooburra!). The Kalahari Gemsbok Park has 48,000 visitors with predicted annual growth following the change in South Africa's political system, the construction of private lodges and the development of tourist activity in the Botswanan sector. Sturt National Park has 12,000 visitors with regional and state interest in growing this market. The common argument is that Sturt could never compete with the Kalahari Park because it has no charismatic cats (lions, cheetah), lacks obvious biodiversity (such as large antelope) and provides none of the drama of large predators and their prey. The reality is that Sturt can produce a comparable experience with appropriate management. Dingoes can be re-introduced (with appropriate protection of pastoralism as in the Kalahari) to provide the drama of predation, visitors can be educated about the diversity of mammals (especially kangaroos), birds (150 spp.), reptiles (46 spp.) and other fauna and how best to find and view them.
For example, many visitors to the Kalahari seek out rare Raptors which are prominent in the avifauana, a characteristic that Sturt also provides. We should emphasise our assests. Kangaroos for their size have a body form unlike any other mammal. A European or North American visiting Africa sees antelope which share the same form and behaviour of familiar deer, sheep and goats. In contrast, the hopping locomotion, the bipedal stance endowing the kangaroo with human-like behaviour and the joey in the pouch will leave international visitors entranced. The absence of dangerous predators means that visitors can walk in the wilderness and examine the flora and fauna more closely rather than be confined to a vehicle or behind a protective fence. The disease risk is minimal compared to the malaria that haunts Southern African parks. Likewise the minimal risk of violent crime and political upheaval in Australia are outstanding assets relative to our African counterparts. The Vision If we take the best of what southern Africa has to offer and adapt this to our own conservation areas then my vision for a park like Sturt would be as follows. · It would promote viewing of large mobs of kangaroos and associated fauna as a world-class wildlife experience. · Domestic and international travellers would be educated about the behaviour and lives of key species so that they would seek out experiences of this drama. With major productions by National Geographic, Discovery and the BBC on red kangaroos in this region, some of this task is being done. It needs to be backed up by high quality guidebooks and photo essays of which the Australian Geographic's 'Corner Country' is an exemplar. · Dingoes need to be re-introduced as a first step in restoring some of the biodiversity and to provide the drama of predation. An old suggestion is to move the 'Dog Fence' to the southern boundary of Sturt to accomplish this. I believe this would be a missed opportunity to fence the complete boundary, undertake feral animal control, commence re-introduction of species such as Boodies and Bilbies and then, as a buffer zone of private 'game-reserves' is developed around the southern and eastern boundary, remove the fence. · Facilities need to be constructed to maximise wildlife viewing opportunities. The basis of southern African parks is a network of roads associated with natural and artificial watering points. These watering points are constructed to promote viewing of aggregations of drinking animals and, if artificial, to provide a photographically appealing perspective. In Australia, there has been strong pressure to remove artificial watering points from national parks as if this will somehow restore natural landscape and population densities. In arid regions this should be managed as an asset to wildlife based tourism. Sturt National Park has retained a number of surface water storages (earthen tanks) along the access roads. The dam walls tend to inhibit photography and so natural-looking pans fed from these tanks should be constructed. Comfortable viewing hides should be constructed at major water bodies that attract waterfowl. · Guided night drives should be offered and illuminated water holes constructed within walking distance of camp sites to reveal the diverse nocturnal fauna and the dramatic behaviour often associated with drinking (competition and predation). · The conservation area should be expanded through public acquisition of key ecosystems such as the Bulloo Overflow and private development of high-quality resorts and 'game' reserves around the expanded park perimeter. The park should be the nucleus for wildlife viewing and gaining an understanding of the conserved ecosystems but should also have extensive wilderness areas. The off-park resorts should offer a guaranteed experience using appropriately trained guides and a diversity of recreational activities (eg swimming, sports, horse riding, trail bikes) inappropriate to a wild area. The benefits Substantial benefits will accrue from developing wildlife-based tourism under this vision. To reiterate, at a minimum these would be: · Counter the extensive international criticism of Australia's kangaroo management program which is based on a 5-million annual cull and consumptive use by (a) unequivocally demonstrating that we have secure populations in large protected areas, (b) we value these amongst the country's greatest assets and (c) we promote these to the domestic and international tourist as the very best of wildlife experiences · Recognition of the intrinsic qualities of kangaroos and Australia's exceptional wildlife heritage · Sustain large populations of kangaroos as both desirable and valuable · Add the economic value of tourism to essentially a mining and pastoral region and thereby encourage and finance maintenance and restoration of biodiversity · Generate economic activity to create employment for both sexes in rural communities Furthermore this vision will benefit: · Wildlife and rangeland managers in directing alternative or additional non-consumptive use of kangaroos to expand protected areas and broaden the economic base · Independent tourists and tourism operators by providing infrastructure, research and educational materials to enhance the quality of the wildlife-based experience · Regional tourism development through the creation of an innovative wildlife-based product · International tourism through the proffering of a unique alternative or addition to the African wildlife safari with animals taking a body form and reproductive mode unlike anything elsewhere in an environment which is politically stable, safe and free of major infectious diseases · International relations by developing a strong kangaroo-based tourist industry to counter powerful lobby groups in North America and the EU who are strongly opposed to our current consumptive industry Australia is perhaps the only country, which is capable of maintaining large protected and wilderness areas without strong human population pressures on their boundaries. We cannot lecture other nations about maintenance of habitat and biodiversity if we, with the best possible circumstances, cannot get it right. It is time to show leadership and innovation on the world stage and this vision is a small step in that direction. References Blamey, R. and hatch, D. (1998).BTR Occasional Paper Number 25, Profiles and Motivations of nature-Based Tourists Visiting Australia. Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra. Grigg, G.C. (1997). A crossroads in kangaroo politics. Australian Biologist 10, 12-22. Muir, K. (1987). Marketing African wildlife products and services/ In: Proceedings of Conference on Wildlife Management in Sub-saharan Africa: Sustainable Economic Benefits and Contribution to Rural Development, 6-13 October, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp. 189-202. New York: UNESCO and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Ramsay, B.J. (1994). Commercial Use of Wild Animals. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Stafford Smith, M. (1994). Sustainable production systems and natural resource management in the rangelands. Outlook 94, Vol 2, Natural Resources. Pp. 148-159.
|
