Victoria’s state animal emblem, the Leadbeater’s possum, is set to be formally recognised as being on the brink of extinction. But the state government has again stopped short of backing a new national park to protect the Leadbeater’s habitat, which conservationists and many scientists say is crucial to ensuring the species’ survival.
The species lives primarily in the ash forests and sub-alpine woodlands of Victoria’s central highlands, with a small lowland population to the east of Melbourne.
In face of this challenge, Environment Minister Lisa Neville will instigate more surveys, without actually promoting what’s actually needed – a new National Park! More paper-shuffling, procrastination, political spin and riding roughshod over the best advice, but no actual progress in protecting our State’s dying emblem from the threatening process – logging!
This Fairy Possum is so elusive it was thought to be extinct until it was re-discovered in 1961. It’s endemic to Victoria. We all know what needs to be done to save it… the extinction of the species is entirely preventable. Australian Paper’s ongoing use of wood pulp from VicForests, which fails to meet sawmill production quality standards, is sourced from known Leadbeater’s possum habitats. Populations of large, old trees necessary for the survival of Leadbeater’s Possum (and many other vertebrates) are crashing to historically low levels. Unburned and unlogged old-growth forest now covers just 1.16% of the mountain ash forest estate – probably the most limited extent in the evolutionary history of this tree species.
Leadbeater’s Possum is an arboreal marsupial with soft grey fur. It has a prominent dark brown stripe along its back and is pale underneath. Its ears are thin, large and rounded and it grows up to 17 cm in length. Its thick tail grows to 18 cm in length. A wildfire in 1939 created suitable habitat for the Leadbeater’s Possum’s current range and led to a peak in population numbers, estimated to be about 7500 individuals in the early 1980s. This population estimate is predicted to undergo a 90% reduction by 2025. Nobody would call this population dwindling “sustainable”.
The Leadbeater’s Possum Advisory Group was established in 2013 to provide recommendations that support the recovery of the possum, while in an apparent oxymoron, is committed to maintaining a sustainable timber industry – the same “sustainable” timber industry that’s largely wiping out the species!
In a great twist of irony, a mixture of oxymorons, and loaded contradictory terms, the government is trying to “save” the Leadbeater’s Possum, whilst at the same time preserving the environmental and socio-economic values of our logging the old-growth forests – their home! Surely the species dependant on the forests are integral to their environment, and can’t be surgically dissected from logging profits! Wonder what the important “socio-economic” values of the logging industry are if it destroys our own State’s native emblem in the process? More like bulldozer diplomacy.
New measures by our State government include VicForests commencing a program of remote camera surveys to look for Leadbeater’s Possum colonies in targeted areas planned for harvest, that will complement existing measures such as the protection of habitat and retention harvesting in forest outside of the reserve system. (Premier of Victoria media release: Protecting Victoria’s Iconic Leadbeater’s Possum Friday 17 April 2015)
(image: George is a taxidermied male Leadbeater’s Possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) that Friends of Leadbeater’s Possum uses for it’s educational work concerning this threatened species. George was found dead but intact on the side of a logging road about 2011 in the Victorian Central Highlands. It is assumed that George’s home in the mountain ash (Eucalyptus Regnans) forests was a victim of logging, and as his home was being carted away he fell off the logging truck.)
They are going to great length to preserve their political integrity, and their reputation as being environmentally friendly, with a “proud history of protecting and enhancing the natural environment”… but fall short of actually ending the timber harvests in the Central Highlands of Victoria the Leadbeater Possums rely on! You can’t keep your cake and eat it too.
The proposed Great Forest National Park park would add 355,000 hectares of protected forests to the existing 170,000 hectares of parks and protected areas in the Central Highlands of Victoria by amalgamating a group of smaller parks. The park would stretch from Healesville to Kinglake in the west, through to Baw-Baw plateau in the east and north to Eildon. A new national park is needed not only to conserve possums and forests, but to protect carbon stocks, water supplies and lower the risk of bushfires. Surely such a new forest National park would be a win-win for Victoria, on numerous levels, and embrace much more socio-economic values that VicForests’ destructive logging “harvests”.
Numerous conservationists and scientists – including Sir David Attenborough and Dr Jane Goodall – have supported a campaign to set up the “Great Forest National Park” in the region, which would encompass much of the highlands forest. The value of the forests for their natural qualities can’t be seen for the dollars worth of the trees!
The Australian Greens say that the Future of our forests treated as little more than garbage. “The time has come to acknowledge that Regional Forest Agreements have failed to protect our carbon stores, our water catchments, our local jobs and communities, and so many of our unique plants and animals,” said the Greens forests spokesperson Senator Janet Rice. “We’ve seen the impact Regional Forest Agreements have had on the decline of the Swift Parrot in Tasmania and the Leadbeater’s Possum in Victoria – they are both hurtling towards extinction”.
After receiving criticism from animal welfare charity Viva! and pressure from consumers, British supermarket giant, Iceland have announced they have stopped selling kangaroo meat. Viva!’s long running consumer campaign included a funeral procession for wildlife inside an Iceland store and a nationwide Day of Action, demanding they stop selling kangaroo meat.
• Kangaroos are brutally killed in the outback for international meat trade
• Baby joeys ripped from mother’s pouch and clubbed to death
• Health risks associated with consuming kangaroo meat
Iceland had stocked kangaroo meat, marketing it to consumers as a ‘low fat exotic meat’. However, what they failed to mention is that the kangaroo meat industry is one of the most brutal and violent in the world. It is sold as ‘just a bit of fun’, but don’t be fooled. It is the product of suffering and blood-shed on an enormous scale. Millions are shot every year at night in Australia’s vast outback. Mesmerised by powerful search lights, the animals are supposedly shot in the head but many are mis-shot and die a slow, agonising death.
Experts from both the UK and Australia have expressed their concerns about the health implications of consuming kangaroo meat and warned than it ‘could be riddled with pathogens’. Five years ago, independent testing had found dangerously high levels of Salmonella and E.coli in kangaroo meat bought from Australian supermarkets. In 2014, dog ‘treats’ made from kangaroo meat were withdrawn because of Salmonella contamination.
In addition to the potential health risks, Viva! warns of serious animal welfare issues surrounding the killing of kangaroos. In the UK it is a common misconception that kangaroos are farmed; when they are in fact completely wild animals. As such, their population can fluctuate massively – and can be especially impacted by factors that can be difficult to predict, such as drought (which is only expected to worsen because of climate change) and disease.
Baby kangaroos (joeys) are pulled from their dying mother’s pouch to be clubbed to death. Still dependent adolescents are shot and dumped or left to die from predation or hunger without the protection of their parents. Popularising and commercialising the meat of wild animals – whose populations are finite and unstable – is deeply irresponsible and potentially disastrous.
Whilst populations can build up in some areas they have plummeted in others. In 2015 alone there was 6.8 million kangaroos earmarked for slaughter. According to the Australian Government’s own figures, since 2001 (compared to 2015) there has been an overall drop of 12,577,598 kangaroos in the areas where they are hunted.
Animal welfare organisation Viva! have campaigned against the sale of kangaroo meat since the late 1990s. Recently they have also successfully stopped major British supermarkets Sainsbury’s, Morrison’s and Tesco from selling the meat. Only Lidl has failed to listen to Viva! and their customer’s concerns about the meat and as a result is the last major supermarket still selling it.
Juliet Gellatley, founder and director of Viva!, explains why Iceland ditching kangaroo meat is an milestone:
“We are delighted that Iceland have taken kangaroo meat off their shelves after listening to Viva! and their customer’s concerns. What was being promoted as a little bit of fun to British consumers hid the brutal reality that the kangaroo trade drives the largest massacre of land based wild animals in the world today. We are committed to supporting Australian wildlife groups to end this repugnant, merciless and thuggish trade.”
Notes to editor
1. Iceland quote was obtained from Keith Hann, Director of Corporate Affairs keith.hann@iceland.co.uk on 30 January 2018 – his full quote was:
“I am happy to confirm that Iceland removed all lines containing kangaroo meat from sale last year, in response to feedback from our customers.”
2. Viva!’s kangaroo campaign website www.savethekangaroo.com
3. Viva!’s previous campaigns against this industry have achieved wide media coverage including: The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Grocer and The Sun.
4. For details of the human health implications of eating kangaroo meat please see Viva!’s updated fact sheet: https://www.savethekangaroo.com/factsheet (it includes details of a brand new kangaroo butchering facility closed down because of health concerns)
5. Viva!’s Day of Action took place in 2015- however the consumer campaign has been ongoing since
Video and text of Sheila Newman’s speech at the Animal Justice Party’s event, “Policy basis for Kangaroo treatment in the ACT,” 5 April 2016: Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier – which speeds up fertility turnover.
Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes. Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT roo counts unreliable and invalid. The ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider various genetically based algorithms that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in kangaroos.
Examples include separate gender pathways, with ‘sexual segregation’ where male and female populations live apart. It is likely that the stable presence of mature dominant males and females in family and mob organisation inhibits sexual maturity and activity as has been shown in studies of other species, such as macaques and superb fairy wrens (the latter cooperative breeders). In humans, girls brought up with step-fathers who came late to the family were more likely to mature sexually earlier due to absence of Westermarck Effect.)
Planned wildlife corridors need to be made safe and long-term viable to cope with people, car and kangaroo population movements.
Canberra is pursuing a policy of rapid population growth, mostly through invited economic immigration.
Canberra’s population could increase to 904,000 by 2061 according to new projections released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It’s not inevitable, but the government would like you to believe it is.
Predicting a population growth of at least 98 per cent within 50 years, ACT population projections for 2061 suggest that the Australian Capital Territory population could exceed Tasmania’s population by 2038.
But some think that the ACT’s biggest problem is its kangaroo population. It’s not the new suburbs, the new roads, the new airport, the additional schools, hospitals, houses, and all the new cars that threaten Canberra’s grasslands: it’s the eastern grey kangaroos.
It seems that it is better to have cattle in Canberra’s nature parks than kangaroos.
Ecological cattle grazing is now being trialed. Cattle can be more easily moved than kangaroos. (Fletcher, Senior Ecologist, communication to P. Machin.)
Although, Fletcher had previously described the devastation cattle made to grass cover in no uncertain terms: “Fletcher Phd: p.37. “70 pregnant cows and four bulls grazed for ten weeks at Tidbinbilla after a bushfire in January 2003 (Section 3.5.1). Prior to their arrival, there had been an atypical abundance of pasture due to the death of almost half of the Tidbinbilla kangaroos in the bushfire, but by the time the cattle were removed, the Tidbinbilla pasture had been reduced to the lowest herbage mass recorded on any site during the study.”
ACT Kangaroo Management Policy works on a model that all creatures maximize their population growth and that Canberra’s roos are riding an expansive curve which can only be capped by massive frequent culls. A stated fear is that they will otherwise graze and drastically modify biodiversity of Canberra’s grasslands. Another is that roos need periodically to be shot so as to save them from starving to death.
Why culling is better than harvesting (ACT Senior Ecologist, Don Fletcher)
“[…] the model indicates that commercial harvesting (currently under trial in the region, at the maximum level allowed, results in a sustainable harvest of kangaroos, but does not increase the herbage mass, and only slightly reduces the frequency of crashes when herbage mass falls to low levels. (To demonstrate this with an ecological experiment would require an extremely large investment of research effort.)
However, an alternative ‘national park damage mitigation’ formula, which holds kangaroo density to about 1 ha -1 , is predicted to increase herbage mass considerably and to reduce the frequency of crashes in herbage mass, but these effects would be achieved at the cost of having to shoot large numbers of kangaroos.” (Fletcher Phd: Population dynamics of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in Temperate Grasslands, 2006, p. vi.)
The model and the reality
The ACT Roo Management model is one of high fertility sedentary populations that rarely migrate, grazing grasslands down to the subsoil. But, in his 2006 thesis, p. 237, Senior ACT Kangaroo management ecologist, Donald Fletcher, tested this model and found, to his surprise, that,
“The study did not provide evidence that high densities of kangaroos reduce groundcover to the levels where erosion can accelerate.
Unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in low levels of ground cover. Groundcover had a positive but not significant relationship to kangaroo density, with the highest cover at the wettest site where kangaroo density was highest. Weather has an important influence on groundcover.”
“The results from the study as a whole indicate that unmanaged kangaroo populations did not necessarily result in unacceptably low levels of ground cover.” (Fletcher Phd: p.231.
The Kangaroo Migration factor
Since 2003 DNA studies have shown that ACT and southern NSW roos, both male and female, migrate at significant rates and for longer distances than the ACT model assumes.
Migration has probably been mistaken for fertility, rendering ACT kangaroo counts unreliable and probably invalid.
DNA studies 2003 show migration a strong factor
Zenger et al (2003)[1] found that mitrochondrial DNA samples indicated about 22.61 individuals per generation migrated with a range of 8.17-59.30. In female immigrants the range was 2.73 with a range of 0.60-12.16. Although females demonstrate smaller migration rates compared to the sexes combined, the values are still comparatively high. Analysis across NSW showed populations separated by up to about 230km had equivalent numbers of close relatives when compared to populations only about 20km apart.
This contradicted field study opinion that migration was low in eastern grey kangaroos, and especially low in females in the ACT. Tidbinbilla (a Canberra nature park studied by Fletcher) featured in the Zenger et al study.
Zenger: Mt DNA findings contrary to Migration views in Fletcher thesis
“Throughout their lives eastern grey kangaroos are relatively sedentary (Johnson 1989) compared to red kangaroos (Priddel 1987). A partly concurrent study of eastern grey kangaroo habitat use and movements on the Googong and Tidbinbilla sites found the eastern grey kangaroos on these sites were sedentary in all seasons (minimum convex polygon mean size 0.43 km 2 ± 0.06 SE and 0.61 km 2 ± 0.08 respectively; Viggers and Hearn 2005). Kangaroos were not radio tracked at Gudgenby but my observations suggest there is no more movement of eastern grey kangaroos on and off the site there than at Tidbinbilla. Thus it is likely there was little net movement of kangaroos on and off the study sites.” (Fletcher, page v.)
Paradoxical impact of Culls, kills and Harvests
Harvesting, damage mitigation and culling probably actually accelerate population growth in roos because the smaller ones survive and adapt by sexually maturing earlier – which speeds up fertility turnover.
“Smaller, earlier breeding genetic stock tend to escape harvesting”. See, e.g. J.J. Poosa, A. Brannstrom, U. Dieckmann, “Harvest-induced maturation evolution under different life-history trade-offs and harvesting regimes.” (See note for more literature on this.)[2]
Fletcher, on estimates of biomass consumption per roo allows for large variations in harvested populations vs wild populations.
“How big are eastern grey kangaroos? The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos taken from the unshot population at Tidbinbilla was 29 kg – smaller than the 35 kg mean live weight assumed in the Kinchega kangaroo study (Caughley et al. 1987). Based on the size relationship between shot and unshot populations of kangaroos in South Australia and Queensland (Grigg 2000), the mean size of eastern grey kangaroos in equivalent shot populations was predicted to be 17 kg live weight. The minimum dressed size accepted by operators of commercial chillers is 17 kg, implying that many of the kangaroos in shot populations (on rural properties) in the ACT region are too small to attract commercial shooters.”(Fletcher, p.242.)
Culling has a similar effect.
Earlier maturation would contribute to higher population growth rates. What role does harvesting, culling and farm mitigation killing play in accelerating breeding rates? “Smaller, eat less, more numerous, more fecund”, reproduce earlier
“The management implications arising from this study are numerous and a full account would require a separate report. As one example, kangaroos in these temperate grasslands are on average smaller, eat less, are more numerous, and are more fecund, than would be predicted from other studies (e.g. Caughley et al. 1987). Thus the benefit of shooting each kangaroo, in terms of grass production, is less, or, in other words, more kangaroos have to be shot to achieve a certain level of impact reduction, and the population will recover more quickly, than would have been predicted prior to this study.” (Fletcher, p245.)
Kangaroos shot in Tidbinbilla and low weight in shot populations
“The mean live weight of eastern grey kangaroos in high density populations can be estimated from the weights of a sample of 332 kangaroos shot at Tidbinbilla in June 1997 (Graeme Coulson, personal communication, 2003) to be 29 kg. (That is an adjustment of the actual mean liveweight of the shot sample, 26.4 kg, to allow for seasonal effects, as explained in Discussion. Kangaroos in shot populations, such as on grazing properties, are likely to be smaller due to selective harvesting, also explained in Discussion).”(Fletcher p.242.)
Wider Research Base needed
In my view, the ACT needs to stop culling and widen its research base to consider encouraging various genetically based behaviours that naturally restrain fertility opportunities in roos.
Known examples include incest avoidance, which limits breeding unless animals can disperse to their own territory. [3]
Sexual segregation and gender pathways, where male and female populations live apart.
Incest avoidance as a spatial limiter of breeding opportunity
Many examples of suppressed maturity or breeding in both males and females close by related adults in many species. (Sheila Newman, Demography Territory Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, chapter 3.) (Paperback edition and Kindle edition.)
In kangaroos male sexual dominance and monopolisation of females is a very obvious trait. (The effect of dominant close females on female maturation is less known and should be investigated as it has been in other species).
Where large males and females are removed from mobs, these limiting population effects are also removed. What happens then?
The following diagram is of human kinship rules, however similar patterns of incest avoidance occur in other species, and in kangaroos. The diagram for humans is split into family and in-laws and sets out some typical rules for incest avoidance in low fertility environments – central Australia and mountainous South Korea. The rules for inlaws are reproduced back to front to demonstrate a mirror-like effect. The person in the top left corner, ‘You” may not conceive/marry any of the people in the black squares. That leaves only eight possible mates – as long as they are not already married. Imagine how hard it would be to find a wife or husband under these circumstances in a sparsely populated society of small clans that only travelled on foot, without cars, planes or boats. In a more fertile environment, the rules of incest avoidance are usually much less strict, as in Leviticus, where people may marry their first cousins – giving much greater fertility opportunities, even without the benefit of modern transport. For more about this and how it affects human economies see: “Overpopulation: Endogamy,Exogamy and fertility opportunity theory”.
The following two diagrams are from Zenger et al (2003).
They show the regions from which their eastern grey kangaroo DNA samples were taken, and they give a ‘family tree’ of roo DNA diversity, which shows greatly decreased diversity in north NSW and in Queensland. The authors could find no explanation for this.
Harvesting has gone on for a long time in these regions. We know it is associated with marked size decrease. It seems likely that it is also associated with earlier sexual maturity. Consider the possibility that, as well as size decrease and earlier sexual maturation in harvested populations, the decrease in genetic diversity present in those populations may be due to inbreeding resulting from loss of family structure and associated incest avoidance, with decreased migration as small early maturing roos settle for their siblings. There seems little will to investigate this. Although there is some literature, it is very limited. (See note [2].)
“Sexual segregation is a phenomenon seen in many species, with segregation occurring along behavioural or ecological dimensions. Sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos in semi – arid Victoria has been the subject of intensive investigations since the last review.
[…] MacFarlane and Coulson (2005) investigated the effects of mating activity, group […] composition, spatial distribution and habitat selection on sexual segregation in western grey and red kangaroos. The synchrony and timing of mating activity was seen to influence the magnitude and timing of social segregation in these species, with mixed sex groups predominating during the breeding season. …
… Spatial segregation and habitat segregation were also seen. Although the magnitude of these types of segregation were weaker, they were both still significantly influenced by synchrony and timing of breeding.
Coulson et al. (2006) discussed sexual segregation at three levels (habitat, social and dietary) and confirmed that both size and sex influence segregation.
MacFarlane and Coulson (2009) showed that the need for males to maintain contact with other males (perhaps to develop important fighting skills, evaluate rivals and establish a dominance hierarchy) might also promote sexual segregation.
Similarly Nave (2002) reported evidence of sexual segregation in eastern grey kangaroos in Victoria.”
What are the consequences of loss of sex-specific territory?
Years ago a man who had worked in PNG told me that fertility shot up when churches convinced men and women to cohabit, where previously they had separate land and houses.
What effect could reduction of habitat, forced cohabitation, forcibly changed migration routes and wiped out populations have on male/female kangaroo territory and consequently on fertility opportunities?
How do we know that the female bias (recorded by Fletcher) at Tinbinburra, for instance, is not due to that area being female territory?
Female elder kangaroos
Daughters seem to learn from their mothers to look after joeys. Where female kangaroos are early orphaned their parenting skill may increase risks in joey upbringing. The extraordinary rates of joey mortality may have something to do with this. (See Faces in the Mob for a study of success and failure in raising joeys in one mob.)
In conclusion, regarding ACT Kangaroo management:
It seems that ACT Roo Management Policy and Science:Fails to monitor family structure (spatial population monitoring)
-Fails to deal with size reduction, fertility increases probably related to culls etc
-Fails to look at behaviour; notably breeding limitations exerted through incest avoidance/dominance and separate male/female territory
-Underestimates immigration (See Zenger et al)
-Fails to use DNA monitoring to help in the above
-Seems excessively presumptive and mechanistic.
NOTES
[1] Zenger et al DNA study 2003: (Heredity (2003) 91, 153–162. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800293, K R Zenger, M D B Eldridge and D W Cooper, “Intraspecific variation, sex-biased dispersal and phylogeography of the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus).” http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v91/n2/full/6800293a.html)
[2] Harvesting impact literature: Many of these studies arise from fish stocks. Articles quoting studies for kangaroos tend to quote from the same very small amount of literature and to draw equivocal conclusions, frequently paraphrasing each other. Peter T. Hale, “Genetic effects of kangaroo harvesting”, Australian Mammalogy 26:75-86 (2004)http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.319.7936&rep=rep1&type=pdf seems to be the main work cited, but relies on studies which Fletcher’s Phd calls into question, has little to say about eastern grey kangaroos but seems to infer that they have similar rates of starvation attributed to red kangaroos.
In Review of Scientific Literature Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos (2011) http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/110641Kangaroolitreview.pdf , pp.27-28, after flagging the potential impact of harvesting on kangaroos, the study concludes with a mere opinion that the impact of size and other harvesting selection on kangaroos probably would not be great, on the assumption that the harvested populations are not isolated. This is pretty much as Hale’s study (above) concludes. However we know that the harvested populations in northern NSW and Queensland are genetically isolated and impoverished according to Zenger et all (2003) cited above. Furthermore, the review showed it was aware of Zenger et al.
“The last two reviews concluded that there was no evidence, or potential, that commercial harvesting could alter the genetic structure of kangaroo populations at current harvesting levels (Olsen and
Braysher 2000, Olsen and Low 2006). It was perceived that kangaroo populations would have to be reduced to very low levels for genetic impacts to become significant (Olsen and Braysher 2000). Moreover, at the time of the last review, it was concluded that there was an absence of theoretical, empirical and modelled evidence of genetic impacts at current levels of harvesting” (Olsen and Low
2006, p50) and there were few, if any,examples of harvest‐induced body size selection in terrestrial
vertebrates. While there have not been any studies specifically investigating the potential genetic
impacts of harvesting kangaroos since the last review, there have been a large number of original
research and review papers addressing this question in a range of other vertebrate species, highlighting the perception that the potential genetic consequences of harvesting may be significant.
The human harvest of wild animals is generally not a random process, with harvesters often selecting phenotypically desirable animals, e.g. those with a large body size or elaborate weaponry, such as antlers. This therefore has the potential to impose selective pressure on wild populations, which may result in an alteration to population structure by reducing the frequency of these
desirable phenotypes and/or an overall loss of genetic variation (Allendorf et al. 2008).
Allendorf and Hard (2009) have termed this process “unnatural selection”, which is defined as undesirable changes in an exploited population due to selection against desirable phenotypes. Cited examples of the
effects of selective harvesting on desirable phenotypes include an increase in the number of tuskless elephants (Loxodonta africana) in South Luanga National Park, Zambia, and a decrease in horn size of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) because of trophy hunting (reviewed in Allendrof and Hard 2009). In the case of bighorn sheep, the observed genotypic and phenotypic effects resulted from selective harvesting of young males with rapidly growing horns a trait linked with high reproductive
success) before they reached an age where they could achieve high reproductive success (Coltman
et al. 2003). This study highlights the importance of understanding age-specific trait size, rather
than trait size per se.
A recent review by Mysterud (2011) discusses the relative importance of various biotic and abiotic
factors that determine the potential for selective pressure from harvesting. In particular, Mysterud highlights the importance of assessing selective harvesting within the context of management regulations, hunting methods, animal trait variance, behaviour and abundance. Mysterud argues that in many cultures large mammal harvesting is not expected to produce strong directional
selection in trait size.
Although many of the factors discussed are of greater relevance to traditional sport hunting, this review highlights the importance of a number of factors relevant to the commercial harvesting of kangaroos in Australia.
There is certainly evidence for selective harvesting of larger/older animals within kangaroo populations, primarily because the economic performance of kangaroo harvesting enterprises is highly sensitive to variations in average carcase weight (Stayner 2007). Between 1997 and 2009 the total harvest in NSW comprised between 70 and 89% males. In the case of wallaroos, the
commercial take is even more strongly biased towards males (almost 90%), because females rarely
reach the minimum size dictated by licence and market conditions (Payne 2011). Despite the preference for larger males, it was reported that harvesters target a range of sizes above the minimum, especially when densities are reduced and there are fewer target animals (Payne 2011).
There average weight of harvested animals supports this assertion [(Table 2)].
As reported in the last review (Olsen and Low 2006), studies on the potential effects of size-selective harvesting in kangaroos concluded that although there was potential for genetic consequences of
harvesting within a closed population (Tenhumberg et al. 2004), the degree of mobility and
geographic range of genetic populations of kangaroos would be sufficient to ensure that any localised effects could be countered by immigration (Hale 2004). So, the question remains: does the recent literature on this topic provide any basis for changing the previous conclusions?
Probably not.
In the big horn sheep example referred to above, the extent of selective harvesting pressure was probably much stronger than occurs in kangaroo populations. In addition, the population was small, isolated and had restricted potential for immigration (Coltman et al. 2003), thereby exhibiting characteristics akin to a closed population. As such, this probably represents a more extreme example, where prevailing management and biological factors combined to create strong selective
pressure.”
Penny Olsen and Tim Low, “Situation Analysis Report, Update on Current State of Scientific Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and Economic Impact and Effect of Culling,” School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT and 6 Henry Street, Chapel Hill, Queensland, Prepared for the Kangaroo Management Advisory Panel, March 2006
Proceedings of the 2010 RSPCA Australia Scientific Seminar: Convergence or conflict: animal welfare in wildlife management and conservation, Tuesday 23 February 2010, CSIRO Discovery Centre, Canberra https://www.rspca.org.au/sites/default/files/website/The-facts/Science/Scientific-Seminar/2010/SciSem2010-Proceedings.pdf
[3] Family structure/westermarck/incest avoidance/endogamy/exogamy: Sheila Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: Rules of animal and human populations, Countershock Press, 2013, Chapter 3, “CHAPTER 3: The urge to disperse: Why children don’t usually marry their parents.” (Available amazon.com) Examples of incest avoidance citations within:
“Several studies have shown that maternal relatives avoid mating with one another (rhesus macaques: Smith, 1995; red colobus, Procolobus badius temminckii: Starin, 2001; Japanese macaques: Takahata et al., 2002; and see for review: Moore, 1993; van Noordwijk and van Schaik, 2004), 88 but less is known concerning patterns of inbreeding avoidance between paternal relatives (but see Alberts, 1999). In this study, we showed that the probability of paternity by a dominant male decreased when he was related to the dam at R = .5 (the highest possible relatedness coefficient in our study). Smith (1995) showed in rhesus macaques that the intensity of inbreeding avoidance was directly correlated with the closeness of kinship, as in the mandrills studied here. ”
Marie Charpentier, Patricia Peignot, Martine Hossaert-McKey, Olivier Gimenez, Joanna M. Setchell, and E. Jean Wickings., 2005. “Constraints on control: factors influencing reproductive success in male mandrills (Mandrillus sphinx).” Behavioral Ecology 16:614–623]
More reference examples on incest avoidance in multiple species:
Hoier, S., 2003. “Father absence and the age of menarch, A test of four evolutionary models,” Human Nature, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 209–233, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York.
Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Douvle MC, 2003. Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 185 72:189–202;
Griffin AS, Pemberton JM, Brotherton PNM, McIlrath G, Gaynor D, Kansky R, O’Riain J, Clutton-Brock TH, 2003. A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta). Behav Ecol 14:472–480;
Mateo JM, 2003. Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181;
Pusey A, Wolf M, 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206;
Stow AJ, Sunnucks P, 2004. Inbreeding avoidance in Cunningham’s skinks (Egernia cunninghami) in natural and fragmented habitat. Mol Ecol 13:443–447;
Yu XD, Sun RY, Fang JM, 2004. Effect of kinship on social behaviors in Brandt’s voles (Microtus brandti). J Ethol 22:17–22.
TO:
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP Premier of Queensland
Hon Dr Steven Miles, Minister for Environment and Heritage Protection and Minister for National Parks and the Great Barrier Reef
The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) is a non-profit charity founded in 1969 by Arthur Queripel and incorporated in 1981. Registered Charity A0012224D/ ABN 85240279616
The committee and members are appalled at the wanton vandalism and carnage that’s happening in Queensland, the State under your custodianship, at this present time.
The statistics from 2014-15 — the most recent figures we have — show that 2960 square kilometres of forest was cleared in Queensland alone. This has led to a “massive escalation in the rate of deforestation”, which has resulted in the deaths of “countless native animals” and has impacted the Great Barrier Reef significantly; much of the current land-clearing is occurring in Great Barrier Reef catchment areas.
Nationally, the Australian Koala Foundation believes the koala population — which is concentrated across Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, is less than 80,000. In addition to koalas, tree-clearing victims include mammals like the feathertail glider, a range of native birds and countless reptiles and frogs.
A new report by RSPCA and WWF-Australia, released Sept 7, significantly on Threatened Species day, highlights the worsening impact of tree-clearing across the east coast of the country — and koalas are on the frontline of clinging onto their existence! “The enormous extent of suffering and death caused makes tree-clearing the single greatest animal welfare crisis,” the report found.
The report exposes that tree-clearing rates due to urban sprawl, (engineered high population growth!) logging and “development” have more than tripled in recent years and Australia’s east coast now is one of 11 global deforestation hot spots.
We call this “development” as synonymous to government-sanctioned environmental vandalism!
Tens of millions of wild animals suffer injuries, displacement and death every year due to the bulldozing of their forest and woodland habitats, the report revealed. So our precious and unique native birds and animals are just collateral damage, in the name of economic progress, “economic growth”?
In Queensland alone, WWF-Australia estimates tree-clearing kills about 34 million native mammals, birds and reptiles annually.
This is genocide, and is shaming us as a supposed first world, developed nation.
Queensland has been rated as a “contemporary hot spot” for land clearing and is on par with places like Brazil, a new study has found. “Land clearing in Queensland is the highest that it has been in the last 10 years,” Dr Reside said.
“We have 95 threatened species of animal, 12 threatened species of plant that are impacted by land clearing.”
Why bother with the facade of having an Environment Department, Minister, if there’s a carte blanche for industries and property developers have an open book to do what they want, and destroy vegetation with impunity? Why have the pretence of any laws, policies or regulations to protect wildlife, our endemic species, or the environment?
Scientists estimate tree-clearing in Queensland now kills 34 million animals each year: 900,000 mammals like koalas, possums and gliders, 2.6 million birds like cockatoos and 30.6 million reptiles including goannas, dragons, skinks and geckos. Just how are native animals meant to survive the onslaught of chain saws, bulldozers and the sure-killer of habitat being stolen?
Habitat destruction is a major driver of extinction of wildlife. Over 120 Australian vertebrate species have ended up on the national threatened species list due in large part to bulldozing of their bushland habitats. (Tree Clearing: The hidden crisis of animal welfare in Queensland. Joint RSPCA and WWF report as below).
But this underestimates true numbers of animals affected. In particular, the legacy impacts of clearing due to fragmentation and degradation of the remaining habitat are likely to be even more severe because they are ongoing and affect subsequent generations. This is exemplified by koalas, of which more than 10,000 were admitted to the four wildlife hospitals in southeast Queensland from 2009 to 2014, mainly due to dog attacks and vehicle collisions, more than 10 times the numbers directly affected by clearing.
We would like to know where the leadership is, and how industrialists and property developers have grabbed so much power and influence? What happened to our ethics, wildlife conservation policies, standards of stewardship, and responsibilities to future generations?
This neo-Colonialism can’t be defended by 19th century ignorance, as in the past. So the policy of Terra Nullius is alive and well today, with no State, national or international safeguards against rampant destruction, the further of threatening and killing processes and the sterilization of Queensland to vast, de-nuded landscapes void of native vegetation and indigenous species? What about your responsibilities to our climate change mitigation policies?
Our members are outraged, as is the AWPC committee members. We need some answers, and we demand that NO MORE land be cleared in Queensland, that the Queensland population is stabilised, and there is funding for landscape restoration and re-vegetation of damaged ecosystems – along with protected zones, extra national parks, and breeding programs and release strategies for endangered/threatened species.
Assoc. Professor Martine Maron at the University of Queensland and Professor Carla Catterall at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, are very concerned about large-scale land clearing Down Under.
Thanks to everyone who emailed Californian Senators. You joined up to 100,000 people around the world who signed petitions and contacted the Senators directly.
Keep an eye on our website www.kangaroosatrisk.org for more pages going up soon about ecology, surveys and the industry.
Brilliant work by the amazing Californian lobbyist Jennifer Fearing, our partner US team Humane Society US and CA, and the wonderful Australian organisations who co-signed letters to Californian senators and put out the call via their networks. It’s been an inspiring win.
Everyone rocks!
Helen Bergen
Bathurst NSW Australia
+61 (0)423 405 993
BathurstKangarooProject_Text&Image_Logo.jpg
Kangaroos at Risk
science & research
I am concerned about the report that West Wimmera Shire councillors believe an increased kangaroo population is becoming a public safety issue. Councillors are floating the idea of a culling program.
Surely kangaroos are in danger of traffic? With increasing numbers of people and trucks on our roads, it’s horrendous to travel on our country roads and see dead wildlife – many of them kangaroos. Our human population is set to soar to 10 million by mid century, and the carnage with wildlife can only increase with more traffic.
Kangaroos are protected native animals. The idea of a “cull” is repugnant, as if they were unwanted feral species with no control over their numbers? On the contrary, it’s believe that “culling” destroys mob dynamics and gives more opportunities for younger males to mate, and thus increase breeding pairs! It’s simply believed that they keep breeding with no demographic limits?
Surely there’s a holistic and humane way to control motor accidents, that’s not passing the “blame” onto our nation’s iconic animals, and have them killed – for pet food? There needs to be more research done on deterring kangaroos away from roads, with safe and non-lethal methods. There’s smells, noises, sights and wildlife corridors – along with fences, tunnels and overpasses – and of course encouraging the public to SLOW DOWN in wildlife-dense areas!
Please, could you consult with wildlife experts, and VicRoads, on non-lethal and humane ways of avoiding accidents with kangaroos on our roads, and considering the balance that kangaroos are in danger too – not just humans.
Thank you
Vivienne Ortega
Australian Wildlife Protection Council,
The government introduced a two-year trial to cull kangaroos for pet food in 2014.
A State Government trial involving Ararat, Horsham, Northern Grampians, Yarriambiack, Southern Grampians and Pyrenees local government areas is due to conclude in June.
Ms Kealy wants to see the program introduced permanently or the trial extended to include West Wimmera Shire. “It’s created 12 jobs at the Hamilton abattoirs, where they are processing the meat for pet food,” she said.
Ms Kealy wants to make it permanently open season. “Culling” should be for old, or sick, animals. This would not be a “cull”, but be a slaughter. It would be all out war against our Australian animal icon.
The trial had only occurred in areas where kangaroos were in plague proportions. Since the start of these trials the number of permits has increased dramatically, from 30,000 per year, to 70,000 and now 100,000, probably in an effort to justify the slaughter. Ms Kealy said while there were environmental concerns about the issue, the trial had only occurred in areas where kangaroos were in “plague proportions”.
We look forward to a response from the West Wimmera Council!
A survey on the Wimmera Mail-Times showed NO, that most people have NOT noticed increasing numbers of kangaroo!
