Non-Commercial Roo Cull: Wasteful & Disrespectful

Once again the issue of culling kangaroos has come to the fore of the media, particularly in Canberra, but the truth is that following the conversion of much of the landscape to grazing and cropping country, in a good seasons this practice is repeated time and time again across NSW as populations of Eastern Greys reach levels that cause damage to primary producers.

The ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) set an annual quota for 2013 of 1244 kangaroos; the reaction was considerable particularly from the animal welfare and green groups. But the truth is that some properties in isolation can be granted this many tags for their annual cull such is the problem with excess populations of eastern grey kangaroos.

The science behind the culling of native animal populations is fairly well settled: our understanding of the population, their response to stress and the "excess" is now well known and gone are the days of an all out declaration on them - thank heavens for that! The fact that we're back every year culling again suggests that the overall impact is not of any great detriment to the population.

But what this little piece is about is what happens to them following the cull.



Now kangaroo meat is widely regarded (ironically less so in Australia) as a valuable source of rich protein; it is low in fat and has other anti-carcinogenic and anti-diabetes properties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Products).

It is also widely held as an ecologically superior product to domesticated livestock with kangaroos being vastly superior in their adaptation to the Australian landscape, performing better during droughts, limiting the damage to root systems of native pastures and leading to much less erosion and siltation of waterways.

 All in all, kangaroo is a very valuable natural resource.

In NSW, non-commercial culling of macropods (the dominant being eastern grey kangaroos) is governed by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. A landholder makes an application to the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service; a staff member makes a determination and issues the appropriate number of tags. In my experience and the experience of those I've talked to in the past is that the local NPWS rangers are often very friendly, easy to get along with and are sympathetic to the farmers' plight.

So what's the problem?

Well the problem arises when one tries to put all that wonderful protein to use. You see the overwhelming majority of permits prohibit the carcasses being removed from the property.

This has two major problems: the waste of protein and the increased food available to feral carnivores and omnivores.

Following the ACT cull this year, the former issue was raised in the mainstream media (Dumped Roos Seen as Waste of Protein). Unfortunately it never amounted to any real interest among the public, despite the waste of something in the order of 28,000kg of rich protein.

In this case, the concerns of Territory and Municipal Services Minister Shane Rattenbury are valid; with a commercial enterprise in place the investors would want to see a return on their investment and this may mount undue pressure on the annual quota, particularly in a dry or run of dry years. But to dismiss any use of the meat for human consumption on the grounds of these concerns is, to put it bluntly, a soft option; it's a cop out.

If we look to similar programs around the world, the United States sets the standard with their Sportsmen Against Hunger program. This program enables hunters to donate game meat to be used for feeding the disadvantaged within their communities. In 2010 they donated enough meat to generate 1.9 million meals.

Why can't this be replicated in Australia? With hundreds of thousands of kangaroos culled annually we are not short of protein. Instead though they are left to rot in paddocks, providing a temporary food source for destructive pest animals such as wild dogs and feral pigs who then turn on native wildlife and stock to supplement their feed once the glut of prime kangaroo is spent.

It is an incredible waste and an act of despicable disrespect. It's a valuable resource that could contribute to improving the lives of our fellow man, why not use it?

The Conscientious Choice

One of my fundamental beliefs is that each of us has, or should have, the freedom to make a conscientious decision about where we source our food.

This is readily accepted, when it comes to vegetables and fruit; indeed it is actively promoted by an industry, supported by a raft of celebrities and there are various grass roots movements around the world campaigning for public land - footpaths, reserves, etc -  to be converted to, or be made available for market gardens, vegetable plots or herb gardens.

And so it should be the case; it would be a brave but completely misguided and barbaric government to deny people the opportunity or ability to produce or forage for their own food. In countries such as the UK, this idea is further expanded with communities raising livestock on public commons along with healthy crops of vegetables and fruits.

But why should it be any different for the harvesting of meat?

There is little doubt that meat is, for the general populous, an incredibly important part of our diet. There are some who claim a vegetarian diet could be adopted by the global community; to suggest this however, ignores the problems that modern agriculture poses, the enormous threat to the natural biodiversity and the huge toll on sentient beings. In short, it is simply not practical without decimating an already fractured, wounded and vulnerable mother nature.

From an animal welfare perspective, harvesting our meat from the landscape presents perhaps the most humane way of sourcing protein.

Think for a moment about the life of a sheep, cow or pig bred for its meat: from early in its life it is subject to a range of animal husbandry practices that, while necessary, do cause some distress to the animal. From marking lambs, to dehorning cows, to trucking them to an abbatoir, there are few sources of meat that do not cause distress to the animal somewhere in the process.

Now this is not intended to sink the boot into farmers. Far from it, the reality is that without these practices many people would go hungry, malnutrition would be far more prevalent and conflict and social upheaval would plague our communities.

The life of a wild beast on the other hand is most likely one that has never seen or suffered in any way at the hand of man. It is true that there may be the odd animal that has had a close encounter with another hunter, but these are certainly the exceptions to the rule. In hunting we are fulfilling the ultimate in free-range sourced meat.

There is also an enormous benefit to be realised in sourcing meat from introduced game and feral species. There is no denying the impact of cloven hoofed beasts on our fragile, ancient soils has done untold damage to the natural biodiversity of this great land. It is not isolated to terrestrial biodiversity either, with many native fish species suffering habitat destruction through siltation of water holes and sediment smothering spawning grounds (siltation is listed as a key threatening process of the endangered Macquarie Perch - Macquarie Perch - NSW DPI).

I understand that hunting is not for everyone. It is not my intention to 'convert' those who don't currently hunt to this lifestyle. Rather it is to introduce the idea of the conscientious hunter, the idea of harvesting wild meat and the potential benefits of this lifestyle to the individual, to the animal and to the landscape.

But most of all, it is to defend the individual's right to make the conscientious choice about the source of their food.