|
Survival of the
Unfittest
Dr Ian Gunn, BVSc, FACVS, Project Director at the Animal Gene
Storage Resource Centre of Australia, Institute of Reproduction
and Development, Monash Medical Centre, was asked by the kangaroo
industry in 1997 to approve a reduction in the official weight
of kangaroos being commercially killed. This request by the
industry is of great concern to Viva! as it means that there
are insufficient numbers of kangaroos meeting the current
weight.
Dr Gunn refused to support the request by the kangaroo industry
and stated in July 1997:
"..the current situation will ultimately reduce the mature
weights and sizes of future generations and could lead to
a decrease in the ability of the population to survive.
"The ability to accept adhoc decisions and to the development
of future policy without rational and valid facts, seems to
be a continual feature of this industry. Without a national
plan to preserve the species and the environment, it is totally
inappropriate to allow the continual mass slaughter on the
basis of the economic viability of those in the industry."
(4)
"...the continued slaughter of kangaroos has the potential
to cause the extinction of a number of remaining species."
In 1999, Dr Gunn explained that the continued culling may
cause extinctions for three reasons (22):
1. The indiscriminate killing - i.e. the elimination of the
largest, healthiest kangaroos
2. The unreliable and largely estimated kangaroo population
figures that the government and industry use to justify the
extent of their kill
3. The re-location of species habitats. Kangaroos are being
forced into areas that are very sensitive to climatic changes
and increased grazing pressures as e.g. their habitat has
been destroyed and they have been killed in increasing numbers.
Dr Gunn stated in 1999 that:
"The evidence is indisputable and, if left to continue, has
the potential to result in reduced genetic variability, lower
reproductive efficiency and a radical reduction in the population
density below sustainable levels in certain regions of the
country when associated with habitat destruction or seasonal
conditions such as droughts."
He further states that Australia has the worst wildlife record
in the world. Since the settlement of Europeans 209 years
ago, 18 species of mammals have become extinct (half of all
the world's loss of mammals in the same time), another 45
are threatened with extinction. Six species of macropods have
become extinct (and a further four are extinct on the mainland),
seven are classed as endangered and 10 as vulnerable. Only
nine species are considered abundant however these are killed
annually. (22)
The basis of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection
is that natural factors kill the less fit individuals in all
wildlife species and so only the fittest survive to reproduce.
This is survival of the fittest and is an essential process
for a species to remain healthy and genetically viable.
The annual kangaroo massacre undermines the process of natural
selection. The larger animals are always targeted as they
provide more meat and skin. This means that although a population
will try to breed quickly to regain numbers, the less fit
individuals reproduce, leading to a genetically inferior population.
This situation is worsened in severe drought conditions when,
on top of the millions of kangaroos that die naturally, the
kangaroo industry wipes out the very individuals who are able
to survive the extreme conditions.
This unnatural process which flies in the face of nature,
leads to populations of kangaroos becoming less and less suited
to the harsh environments which they face.
The Australian Wildlife Protection Council told Viva!:
"Defying natural selection and acting to ensure the artificial
process of always killing the biggest and best out of a mob
is a threat to the future survival of the species because
even if there is an increase in populations, the animals are
not fit and the populations are unstable.
"Taking the biggest Red kangaroos for the skin trade and the
young one to two year old Red kangaroos for human consumption
puts insupportable pressure on the Red kangaroo. An up to
80% male bias in the kill leaves weaker, unfit, unstable,
unhealthy populations to breed next year. Is this really supposed
to be "good management"!?
Further, the killing destroys the social order of a mob. "When
a shooter enters the structured society of a mob of kangaroos,
he destroys a complex system by killing the alpha male, his
immediate rivals, and the older females, who are the educators
of the group. This selective hunting results in females mating
with young males and the loss of the inherited genetic strength
of the mob." (22)
As Peter Preuss of the National Kangaroo Campaign, Australia
states:
"This fundamental ecological implication of the commercial
kangaroo industry should be enough for commercial killing
to be seen as a threatening process in the long term." (6)
Further Dr David Croft, School of Biological Sciences, University
of New South Wales adds to this view. He says that reproductive
success in kangaroos is a complex interaction between size,
age and condition of males and females - and "very few individuals
enjoy high success, most miss out." (40)
"Amongst males, the largest and fittest fight their way to
dominion over mating rights to most of the females in their
local population. To achieve this status they have grown for
around 10 years and on average, survived at least one drought.
Where the opportunity arises, females will selectively seek
out and mate with these alpha males, and attempt to thwart
often successfully, the mating attempts of lesser males. Females
advertise their oestrus widely...with the consequence of attracting
a bevy of competing male suitors, amongst which a "superior"
mate will emerge.
"Relatively few unharvested males live long enough to challenge
for alpha status". For example, studies in Queensland show
that only 20% of male red kangaroos reach 4 to 9 years and
yet almost 60% of males are commercially shot in this age
group (41). Croft points out: "If we then impose an artificial
selective pressure through the current regime of male-biased
"top-down" culling, fewer still will survive and the result
is a severe disruption to the natural social organisation,
changes to population dynamics and the introduction of unnatural
selective forces".
Breeding males are becoming smaller and younger and Croft
says those that would not normally breed are doing so. "There
is a strong selection for smaller body size. We lose genotypes
that have been strongly selected by the environment because
survival to an old age is a matter of good foraging skills,
disease resistance, competitive abilities and chance" says
Croft. There is sound scientific evidence to show that female
kangaroos choose "good genes" in potential partners. The kangaroo
industry argues that killing kangaroos does not destroy "good
genes" because killing 15-20% of the population should leave
plenty of copies of "good genes" in the population.
Croft refutes this as: "This would be 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". He says
this should "prompt alarm".
Other countries indicate how commercial killing selects against
characteristics developed for survival. In Sri Lanka the strong
selection pressure from killing elephants for ivory has increased
the proportion of tuskless individuals in the wild populations.
Kurt at el (1995) report a very high proportion - 93% - of
tuskless subadult and adult bull elephants, yet this trait
is rare in Asian elephants. Tusked elephants are preferred
as mates because they have better foraging skills and can
defend themselves and their family against predators, but
there are now few to find. (42)
The above shows that the Australian government's claim
that slaughtering kangaroos for meat "saves millions of kangaroos
from dying a slow death due to Australia's frequent droughts"
to be grossly misleading as the weakest kangaroos are left
to survive by the targeted killing.
The kangaroo industry is responsible for potentially putting
the kangaroo at risk. Dr Ian Gunn reiterates: "The evidence
is indisputable. A moratorium on the culling of all macropods
is urgently needed."
Further Contradictions of the Kangaroo Industry
Michael Archer, director of the Australian Museum, Sydney
is a driving force behind killing kangaroos on the basis of
it helping wildlife! This ill-conceived plan is aptly called
FATE (The Future of Australia's Terrestrial Ecosystems). Politician
Richard Jones (member of the New South Wales legislative council),
criticises FATE: "... as it does indeed represent the ultimate
fate of Australia's fauna and flora - for it proposes what
is essentially their privatisation".
Jones states that the commercialisation of wildlife means:
"the possible loss of our national symbol and the continuing
degradation of ecosystems with four wheel drives carving up
our fragile soils of rangelands in their nightly search for
a kill. With the legal commercial kill tripling in the last
10 years and with the biggest kangaroos the prime target,
there can be little doubt that the gene pool is weakening.
Recent outbreaks of disease may be an indication of this."
(34)
Amazingly, Archer argues that unless the kangaroo is valued
as an economic resource, "it is at risk of extinction through
general disinterest, destruction of its habitat and predator
activity." (18).
The government backs Archer and yet they state that the kangaroo
is certainly not at risk from extinction - in fact it is in
plague proportions. Politician, Mr Slack-Smith declared that
there are "at least 50 million of the four most common kangaroo
species. As a result it is essential to protect the environment
and to reduce the impact of kangaroo populations on farming
and grazing enterprises. Fortunately, every State in Australia
has managed to establish effective culling programs and Australia
is beginning to benefit from the increasing popularity of
kangaroo products domestically and overseas." (26)
Archer claims that large-scale farming of non-Australian species
such as sheep and cattle is damaging the vast and marginal
rangelands and that they should be "downsized" (one point
on which we agree!). Even John Kelly of the Kangaroo Industry
Association agrees in one breath, saying that killing kangaroos
instead of sheep and cattle "makes enormous environmental
wisdom." (26) In the next, his association states that the
industry "plays an important role" in controlling kangaroos.
"The kangaroo population would be approximately 30% higher
if the industry did not exist. (Caughley 1987) This would
threaten the stability of the region and potentially result
in extensive desertification." (Note the native kangaroos
do not cause desertification - hardhoofed cattle and sheep
do.)
Many other advocates of the kangaroo industry also do not
support Archer's view, stating that the kangaroos should be
killed so that they do not harm cattle and sheep farmers!
They argue that it is the kangaroos, not their own farming
practices, that destroy the environment. (See section Why
are Kangaroos Killed? for information on why this argument
is false.)
An analysis of the arguments put forward by the industry and
government quickly exposes that they frequently contradict
themselves and, to put it mildly, manipulate the facts.
Quotas - a Cynical PR Exercise
Quotas were introduced in 1975 (32). Each year the federal
minister for the environment announces the annual kill quotas.
These are set state by state and species by species.
As the National Kangaroo Campaign in Australia state, it is
assumed that the quotas reflect the actual numbers of kangaroos
and determine the level of killing.
However, if this were the case, you would expect sizeable
fluctuations in state quotas to accommodate the rise and fall
in kangaroo numbers. The general trend has been a steady increase
in state kills since the 1970s. Even in 1982 to 83, during
a severe drought which caused kangaroo numbers to drop to
11 million; the kangaroo quotas were set at more than 3 million
annually.
The National Kangaroo Campaign state:
"An examination of quotas together with the actual number
of kangaroos killed exposes the quota system to be little
more than a PR exercise. The number of species killed often
exceeds the set quota. When this occurs, the following year's
quota is simply increased to accommodate the overkill in that
state".
The RSPCA of Australia totally opposes the setting of quotas
and further opposes the commercial kangaroo industry because
of the inherent cruelty involved in the killing.
Kangaroos are Killed for Money, not Love...
It is interesting that outlets that sell kangaroo meat,
and the industry, desperately try to defend the kangaroo massacre,
rather than admit that these wild animals are killed purely
for money. Even state governments in Australia concede that
the huge numbers killed now has nothing to do with damage
mitigation or population control; it is simply a profit making
exercise.
In 1984 the Queensland government added the following statement
to its kangaroo management programme:
"It is important to recognise that while the kangaroo industry
was originally a response to the past problem caused by these
animals, it has now come to exist in its own right as the
user of a renewable natural resource and thus serves its own
interests."
Of course referring to living, feeling creatures as 'renewable
resources' is meant to soften the reality of what it really
means - the wholesale slaughter of the planet's wildlife.
The Queensland admission that commercial killing is NOT a
tool for management has been extended to other states. The
Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australian governments
all openly promote the commercial species of kangaroo and
wallaby as a 'renewable resource' which should be shot regardless
of whether the animals are perceived to cause damage or not.
The Australian Wildlife Protection Council says:
"Kangaroos are killed for profit rather than in response to
damage mitigation. The huge increase in the numbers killed
since the 1970s has ensured profits but conflicts with the
traditional objectives for which the kangaroo industry has
gained public tolerance.
"Most Australians are not aware of this recent change in official
policy which erodes the status of the kangaroo to that of
a mere commodity."
Kangaroos and the Environment
One of the most disingenuous statements the sellers of kangaroo
meat make is that the commercial killing of kangaroos "protects
the environment."
The kangaroo industry is environmentally unfriendly! Night
after night shooters criss cross the fragile outback terrain,
causing erosion, trampling the native vegetation and disturbing
(crushing and sometimes killing) the small ground dwelling
native species (many of which are endangered). They kill and
gut millions of kangaroos, leaving their remains to feed feral
animals, thus further skewing the ecology of the outback.
When I was in Australia in March 1998, I had a TV debate with
John Kelly, director of a possum abattoir in Tasmania and
spokesperson for the kangaroo industry. He argued that kangaroos
needed to be killed to protect the environment and that kangaroos
were incapable of controlling their own numbers. (In fact,
female Red kangaroos stop reproducing (anoestrus) during prolonged
poor conditions.) He spoke of the kangaroos as if they were
some alien species destroying everything in their path. (See
section Further Contradictions from the Kangaroo Industry.)
I pointed out that the truth was the opposite - as Australian
ecologist Bryan Walters says: "the kangaroo does not destroy
Australia's environment - it is an integral part of that environment
and lives in harmony with it."
Of course the kangaroo is the original resident of Australia.
They are unique to Australia and are perfectly adapted to
live within that magnificent country's harsh climate and sensitive
environment. The earliest ancestors of kangaroos evolved about
50 millions years ago; by about 25 million years ago the evolution
of the macropoids was well under way and by 4-5 million years
ago the first species clearly related to the modern grey kangaroos
and wallaroos appeared. The red kangaroo is the most recently
evolved kangaroo. Its fossil record goes back up to two million
years ago and its evolution coincides with the spread of the
deserts in Australia. (7) The Aborigines entered Australia
40 to 60,000 years ago; the Europeans 210 years ago. The environment
of Australia has been decimated over the past 150 years. One
guess as to which species is to blame.
Kangaroo - the scapegoat for land mismanagement
The federal government's Environment Australia (which implements
legislation designed to ensure that kangaroos are killed and
exported) aggressively supports the kangaroo industry. It
published a revised report, The Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos
in Australia in April 1999. It is supposedly a justification
of the massacre - however, it is nothing of the sort. As David
Nicholls, formerly a full time commercial kangaroo shooter,
states: "Nowhere in its 134 pages does it state that kangaroos
are a significant and widespread problem other than a perceived
one to the grazing community. It does however, on many occasions
point out that the unsustainable use of land by sheep and
cattle producers is a real problem."
Primary Industries, a government body, equate two kangaroos
to one sheep. In other words, the 130 million sheep in Australia
is equivalent to 260 million kangaroos! Yet - as already seen,
the estimate of the kangaroo population is, according to Envrionment
Australia, 25 - 35 million (32).
As Nicholls states:
"For kangaroo "culling" to be necessary, scientific method
requires that significant, widespread and continual damage
to rangelands and infrastructure is actually happening. IT
IS NOT and no such inkling of evidence exists and because
of the proportionally smaller number of kangaroos than stock,
for it to exist, would mean that kangaroos would have to be
far greater destroyers per capita than introduced stock."
(33)
Kangaroos, as already seen, have evolved to suit Australia's
environment - with soft feet, requiring less water then livestock,
no need to grow wool or fat and are efficient travellers that
do not compete for resources with sheep (see Kangaroos are
Killed for Money, not Love...). The Australian government
tries to portray the kangaroo as a pest - Nicholls states:
"Kangaroos have never been pests and they are not now." They
are vilified when it is the sheep and cattle that are ruining
sensitive environment.
The Europeans who first invaded Australia soon found that
it was not a trouble-free land. By 1853 John Robertson of
south-western Victoria wrote:
"...the few sheep made little impression on the face of the
country for three or four years...then plants began to disappear...the
clay hills are slipping in all directions...springs of salt
water are bursting out in every hollow...when rain falls it
runs off the hard ground into the creeks and is carrying earth,
trees and all before it."
As the Australian Wildlife Protection Council says:
"By the 1850s the kangaroo had become a scapegoat for land
mismanagement. It was seen as one more problem facing man
on the land. But, unlike many other environmental and economic
problems facing these folk, the kangaroo could be dealt with
by the age old expedient method of extermination."
The kangaroo has not destroyed Australia's environment; the
white human settlers have raped the land by introducing heavy,
hard hoofed domestic animals such as cattle and sheep. Australia's
soils are far thinner than those in Europe and tree clearance
and livestock have taken a heavy toll. Land degradation is
now Australia's "most pressing environmental problem." (11).
Despite the enormous damage done by these species, livestock
numbers are still high - as shown here
|
|
Year
|
Cattle
|
Sheep
|
|
|
|
1861
|
4 million
|
20 million
|
|
1921
|
13.5 million
|
82 million
|
|
1961
|
17 million
|
152.5 million
|
|
1990
|
23 million
|
170 million
|
|
2000
|
27 million
|
130 million
|
|
Source: Livestock and Livestock Products, Australia
Estimates of degraded land due to pastoralism range from 1.85
to 2.18 million km2 (8,9). The situation is particularly serious
in New South Wales where 100% of the rangelands are degraded.
Considering that the rangelands have only been used for pastoralism
for 100-150 years, this data is frightening. Much of the badly
degraded land will turn to desert unless urgentaction is
taken (8).
As Greenpeace International surmise:
"The farming lobby continues to use kangaroos and wallabies
as an excuse for diminishing margins between farm costs and
returns.....in fact kangaroos are not a significant factor
in the reduction of farm productivity nor indeed do they threaten
agricultural interests." (10)
Currently, farmers cannot blame kangaroos for their misfortunes
- because they are celebrating an upturn in profits. The Age
reported on 7 April 2001 a farmer saying: "Everything has
jelled together for this season. The wool market is good,
so is the beef, the lamb and the oats...I haven't seen anything
like it in my time. It's unbelievable."
And The Australian reported on 17 April 2001 that investors
are rushing into the rural services and that "cattle and wool
prices are booming......{there is} a kind of renaissance in
Australia's rural sector."
Despite the fact that the kangaroo does not compete with livestock
for food, the kangaroo has been labelled a pest by farmers
which gives them a good excuse to make money from killing
them. The government has a greater imperative to placate the
farming lobby than protect wildlife because of its political
leverage. This is because historically, Australia's economic
base was built through the agricultural and pastoral sectors.
However, since the 1950s other sectors in the economy have
become the dominant players. The rural sector now accounts
for only 4% of Australia's gross domestic product.
Despite its minimal contribution, the rural sector still has
considerable political power, as the primary support-base
for conservative governments and as a critical force in marginal
seats for labour governments. Neither have wanted to jeopardise
its constituency for wildlife.
Currently the push from the Australian government is to commercialise
wildlife - plugging the self evident lie that killing kangaroos
protects them! The Nature Conservation Council of New South
Wales, the umbrella organisation for more than 100 conservation,
environmental protection and scientific societies, has called
on the government to "refrain from legislating or otherwise
enabling the commercialisation and consumptive use of certain
types of wild fauna (including kangaroos and all other mammals)".
It also opposes the farming of native animals and has called
for a ban on the export of all kangaroo and wallaby products.
The NCC does not believe the kangaroo industry - whether shooting
animals in the wild or farming wildlife - to be ecologically
sustainable. (22)
|
Campaigns 
