Market Place Demand for Kangaroo Meat

Consumption in

Western Australia: A Sustainability Issue

by

LYNDA BRADDICK

This thesis is presented as part of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts

with Honours in Sustainable Development

at Murdoch University

November 2001

Updated August 2002

2

ABSTRACT About three-quarters of Australia is arid or semi-arid. The introduction of traditional European stock grazing on this fragile Australian environment resulted in extensive land degradation. These rangeland regions were eroded by wind and water as vegetation cover was depleted by overgrazing, soil was compacted around watering points by trampling of excessive stock numbers, groundwater supplies extracted for agricultural purposes has been depleted, and natural patterns of runoff have been altered. All of these changes have in turn affected the native biota with many species becoming extinct and most declining in number. However a few species, such as some kangaroos, have advantaged from these habitat changes to the extent that they have increased enough in numbers to become agricultural pests in some places. Despite extensive hunting of kangaroos by aboriginal peoples, the colonisation of Australia by the English resulted in the introduction of a culture that did not see Kangaroos as a resource and hence for more than a hundred years much of this valuable resource has been wasted. However, the growing realization of the impacts of modern agriculture on the Australian environment is leading increasing numbers of Australians to reappraise these traditional farming methods and new ideas suggesting a much greater emphasis on ‘free-range harvesting’ of native species such as kangaroos are emerging. Public perceptions inherited from this European culture remain as one of the major barriers to increased use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. The Australian perceptions of kangaroos as wildlife and therefore not a resource to be used, or as pest with a low-value resource, constrains an increase in the value of kangaroo meat. This discourages rangeland farmers from replacing sheep or cattle with kangaroos and results in high numbers of grazing animals on fragile rangelands, as well as the loss of an alternative income for farmers and the potential for the introduction of a sustainable method of food production.

CONTENTS

3

1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….. 4 2. WHY IS THE USE OF KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION A SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE? ………………………… 6 3. KANGAROOS, THE ANIMAL …………………………………………… 11 4. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT BARRIERS TO INCREASED USE OF KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?………………… 14 5. RANGELANDS ISSUE …………………………………………………….. 17 6. THE HISTORY OF KANGAROO USE . …………………………………. 23 7. THE KANGAROO INDUSTRY TODAY ……………………….………… 26 Determining Sustainable Levels of Harvesting ……………………………. 28 The Quota System …………………………………………………………… 31 8. THE ISSUE OF SUSTAINABILITY …………………………………….. 38 i. Why are Kangaroos a Sustainable Proposition for Commercial Use? …… 39 ii. What effect does harvesting or farming have on Kangaroos? …………….. 40 iii. Are there Alternative Means of Pest Control? …………………………….. 42 iv. Arguments Against the Conservation of Wildlife through Sustainable Use .. 42 9. THE DEBATE …………………………………………………………….. 44 The Ethical Debate ………………………………………………………… 46 10. ABORIGINAL RELATIONSHIPS TO KANGAROOS ………………. 49 11. CHANGING ATTITUDES AND INDUSTRY DIRECTIONS ……….. 51 12. THE MARKETPLACE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA TODAY The Wholesale Scene Processors ………………………………………………………………… 55 Factors Limiting Increase ………………………………………………… 56 Potential changes for the future ………………………………………….. 56 Distributors ……………………………………………………………….. 57 The Retail Scene .…………………………………………………………. 58 Methodology ……………………………………………………………… 59 Survey Results …………………………………………………………….. 59 Survey Summary ………………………………………………………….. 72 13. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………… 75 14. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………… 79 APPENDIX 1 Countries Involved in Kangaroo Meat Exports APPENDIX 2 & 3 Butcher Survey and Chef Survey

1. INTRODUCTION

4

People discovered Australia at least thirty thousand years ago. It has a long Aboriginal history, when the indigenous people developed a close spiritual link with the environment. With the arrival of Europeans …… ‘The injection of an exotic and husbanded herbivore into an ecosystem whose components had been selected to cope with quite different forces, broke the system down to a new and more simple structure. The changes wrought by grazing were augmented by management designed to change the environment further in favour of livestock. Edaphic forest was converted to induced grassland. Wildlife that killed stock was eliminated. Indigenous species that competed with stock were controlled. Dispersal was modified by fencing and artificial watering points created. The system was changed beyond recognition. Pastoralism formed the base of an emerging nation which rode into the twentieth century on the sheep’s back.’ (Caughley et al, 1987, pg 4). This thesis explores the history of kangaroo use in Australia and examines current management systems for the three species of kangaroo that are used commercially in Western Australia. The thesis has three major aims. The first aim is to present an argument for the sustainable use of kangaroos in the sheep rangeland regions of Australia. One of the major obstacles to increasing the sustainable use of kangaroo meat for human consumption appears to be the attitude of many Australians toward consumption. The second aim of the thesis therefore attempted to assess the attitudes and positioning of retailers in the marketplace in order to determine how these players may be contributing to the current circumstances and the third aim attempted to identify the remaining barriers to increased kangaroo meat consumption in Western Australia. The sheep rangelands of Australia cover nearly ¾ of Australia and comprise the low rainfall and variable climate arid and semi-arid areas and, north of the Tropic of Capricorn, some seasonally high rainfall areas. The rangelands also include the slopes and plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland. A large mix of ecosystem types exist on these pastoral rangelands including shrublands, native grasslands, woodlands and tropical savanna woodlands. (Map) Australian Natural Resource Atlas (ANRA)

However the undefined nature of the rangeland boundaries that move due to climatic conditions, means that management of adjacent areas also needs to be similar to those

5

of the rangelands. Australia’s rangelands have a long and rich Aboriginal history with approximately 18 per cent of the rangelands currently under Aboriginal ownership and management. Pastoralism is the most widespread form of land use with pastoral enterprises occupying 58 percent of the land area and producing contributions of around $1 billion a year. Alternative rangeland enterprises such as kangaroos, goats, buffaloes, native seeds, bush foods and cut flowers contribute around $190 million annually (Environment Australia 1999). Over the past 30 years a significant industry has developed which utilizes the kangaroo resource. The industry has been harvesting an average in excess of 2 million animals per year for the last 25 years. Exports have trebled in the last decade and industry productivity is increasing an average of 5% per year, making it one of Australia’s fastest growing rural industries. The industry currently harvests nearly 3 million kangaroos per year, employs more than 4000 people and generates over $200,000,000 million annually (Payne & Associates, 2000). Around 60%-80% of annual quotas are currently being taken and only 20% of this is diverted to human consumption processing. The value added processing of meat for human consumption is 2-3 times that of pet food products and has the potential to increase the value to the kangaroo industry by 5-fold (i.e. $1billion) without affecting the sustainability of kangaroo populations (Johnson & Associates, 2000). 2. WHY IS THE USE OF KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION A SUSTAINABILITY ISSUE?

6

Australia’s sheep rangeland ecosystem was vastly different from the European environment that current pastoral systems were based on. As a result significant water and land degradation problems have arisen alongside one of the highest modern species extinction rates in the world. Recent decades have seen a growing concern resulting in the questioning of these traditional farming methods. An escalating groundswell of opinion from people in both academic and farming backgrounds is leading the search to find new ways to better match conservation goals and economic rewards. New management systems are emerging using commercial activity based on consumptive or non-consumptive use of what western culture terms ‘wildlife’. These systems modify or replace conventional livestock production systems and are more suited to our specific environmental conditions than the traditional land use systems adapted from elsewhere. As well as being driven by a commercial impetus, there are ecological reasons for this movement. There is a growing realisation that the Australian landscape is generally better suited to production of indigenous species than introduced species. ‘The fact that endemic animal species have co-evolved with their habitat makes them intrinsically better adapted to environmental constraints and thus they represent a more benign form of land use’ (Senate 1997/98, Chap 1, Pg 3). Today, arguments are being raised that suggest that kangaroo harvesting could be part of the ‘answer’ to land degradation, especially in the sheep rangeland areas of Australia. Rangeland ‘farming’ of kangaroos has been presented as an incentive to landholders to reduce their stocking rates. ‘A likely, and desirable long term scenario is, I think, the achievement of economically and ecologically sustainable rangeland management in which a variable mix of sheep and kangaroos is managed, with both being recognised as a resource. Achieving this depends upon successful marketing and promotion of kangaroo products to ensure a price at which the ecologically desirable land care objectives are driven by economic forces. It will be economics, not altruism by graziers, that leads to fewer sheep’ (Grigg et al, 1995b). This is not talking about farming kangaroos behind fences on coastal regions, with the use of drenches and breeding programs to get bigger and better kangaroos. This would involve large land/lease holdings in the sheep rangeland regions of Australia with animals grazing on native vegetation. These rangelands contain most of Australia’s kangaroos, about 10% of Australia’s cattle and 20% of Australia’s sheep (Peters, 2001). The idea of including kangaroos in rangeland management arises because of the need to halt the significant environmental degradation of marginal rangeland regions of Australia caused by overgrazing and the effects of hard-hoofed animals. The main components of this grazing pressure are sheep, kangaroo, rabbits and in recent years an increasing number of feral goats. ‘The principle behind the idea is that if a wildlife product can be harvested directly and sustainably from a particular habitat, then the commercial use of that product puts a value on the habitat which supports the wildlife generating the product. This may lead to the habitat being conserved, conserving the exploited wildlife and, in passing, conserving all of the other components of the fauna and flora which comprise that habitat’(Pople & Grigg, 2001). The traditional attitude of Government and most rural Australians is that kangaroos are a pest that needs to be ‘controlled’ because they compete for grazing with domestic stock and therefore limit the numbers of sheep and cattle a property can stock. They also damage fences and drink water pumped for domestic stock.

7

Therefore in the past, kangaroo harvesting has been approved primarily for damage mitigation. This perception has tended to cloud their perceived value as a resource resulting in restriction of industry growth and land degradation. The strategy of redefining kangaroos as a valuable and renewable resource and not a pest has therefore been proposed. It is suggested that this redefinition may change rural perceptions and allow kangaroos to become part of the economic support base of land/leaseholders. Currently land/leaseholders get no return from the kangaroos, which their property supports and the view that kangaroos are a pest results in an attitude that harvesters are doing land/leaseholder a favour by removing unwanted animals from their property. The common property rights of wildlife in Australia means that ownership is vested in the Crown and its use is regulated through the State legislation. Therefore resources derived from its harvest are common property resources. However in practice, there are a variety of regulations that limit the ability of individuals to participate in the harvest of kangaroos and make their harvest appear more like that of private property. These include trespass laws and the issue of commercial harvest tags. These constraints allow landholders complete discretion in who can undertake harvesting on their property. This discretion is an important component of Grigg’s proposal to allow land/leaseholders to derive profit from kangaroo harvesting (Choquenot et al, 1998). As long as pests such as goats and rabbits are controlled, this option would provide pastoralists with an economically attractive mechanism to reduce grazing pressure by reducing sheep numbers and is increasingly being supported by landholders. It therefore offers a way for land/leaseholders to gain better pest control and to change a formerly wasted resource into a valuable asset. It also provides the potential for sustainable use of wildlife and security for its conservation. The perception that wildlife products are primarily derived from pest control activities is clearly indicated in State legislation and harvesting approaches by State agencies. ‘It is by far the most significant factor influencing the nature of the wildlife harvesting industry in Australia and its diversification and conservation’ (Choquenot, 1998, pg 43). Kangaroos therefore need to be recognized as a sustainable resource with efficient, ‘workable’ State and Federal regulations established to achieve these objectives. These complex attitudes present problems for rangeland management. Grigg (1995) therefore suggests that the value of kangaroo meat needs to be increased. A study by Young and Wilson (1995) concluded that the value of kangaroo meat would need to increase to at least the present value of beef or lamb before pastoralists would consider kangaroos as a viable alternative to domestic stock. Grigg advocates that kangaroo meat should therefore be sold as a specialty meat rather than as a substitute in competition with traditional sources of red meat such as beef or lamb. Grigg also argues that effective national and international marketing campaigns are necessary ‘to ensure a price where ecologically desirable land care objectives are driven by economic forces’ (Grigg, 1999). However, many people do not believe in the prospect of a significant increase in the value of kangaroo products and therefore do not see this as a practical option. Ramsay (1994) found that demand curves for exported kangaroo products indicate that kangaroo products are highly elastic, suggesting that an increase in demand or supply would not increase market prices paid for harvested kangaroos. Clark (1990) therefore points out that promoting kangaroo meat for human consumption in a market where substitutes already exist, would require exceptionally successful marketing outcomes if it is to make demand

8

curves inelastic to the point where the effect of price on demand is substantially reduced. Choquenot et al (1998) state that raw fur kangaroo skins have an inelastic demand curve and suggest this may be due to the limited number of substitutes in the market. They advocate that increasing the base-level demand for this product should be included in any moves to increase the demand for harvested kangaroos. This move has merit, however it may tend to exacerbate the current problem of wastage of a valuable meat resource. Strategies that encourage pastoralists to include kangaroos in their economic support base may encourage the sustainable use of wildlife because it would require pastoralists to produce an ongoing supply for the marketplace. Pastoralists would also be encouraged to maintain a greater control of the numbers of grazing animals, if all animals were given economic worth by commercialization. This proposal is not unanimously supported however, with some individuals and organisations believing that overgrazing would still occur as pastoralists would not switch from sheep to kangaroos and the traditional compulsion to overgraze would remain (Senate Committee, 1997/98). The potential for both the promotion of conservation and the diversification of income for livestock producers is therefore dependent on the sustainability of harvest rates and the degree to which producers are prepared to substitute harvesting for traditional livestock production activities. If producers are able to make money from kangaroos, and they become accepted economically as part of their mixed grazing system, producers will at least have the option of remaining economically viable with lower sheep or cattle numbers. Currently harvest quotas are seldom filled due to economic factors such as the low value of the product in relation to shooters' costs. Pastoralists find this frustrating and therefore pastoralist organisations tend to support the commercialisation of kangaroos not only for economic reasons but also because they see it as a way of kangaroo control. They believe that higher values could provide a greater incentive to harvest more kangaroos and would therefore be a more effective pest control (Grigg, 1995). However, increasing harvest rates may present difficulties for maintaining sustainable kangaroo populations. But many people in the kangaroo industry believe it is possible to increase harvest yields and maintain sustainability. ‘The kangaroo industry currently produces about 24,000 tonnes of meat annually and can sustainably yield twice that’ (Kelly, Dec 1999). Harvesting of kangaroos has three significant areas of uncertainty in regards to sustainability however. One is the difficulty of determining the exact size of the current population, which is subject to sampling errors. Two is that the size of the future population is unable to be accurately predicted due to the influence of environmental conditions and three is that the rate of population immigration that occurs is poorly known. The densities to which kangaroos need to be reduced to achieve the goal of damage mitigation have also not effectively been identified. These factors make the major objective of shifting the view of kangaroo harvesting from a pest control to a sustained harvest paradigm more difficult (MacCallum, 1995). Lack of knowledge in some of these key areas is hampering progress and needs to be addressed through active management of kangaroo numbers. The utilization of wildlife could provide opportunity for the replacement of traditional rangeland livestock production, either partially or totally, with alternative methods of land use that allow natural habitats to recover while still providing an income to landowners. Financial gains from these diversified enterprises may well provide producers with the incentive and ability to contribute to habitat replacement and protection. The saving of habitat means wildlife can be saved. This is an

9

important factor as the sheep rangelands contain most of the kangaroo population of Australia. Therefore land restoration and preservation of the rangelands has major positive benefits for kangaroo conservation. If this habitat is not conserved, and the trend toward desertification continues, the implications for kangaroo conservation could be dramatic (Grigg, 1988). Additional benefits may also ensue from commercial use of wildlife such, as undermining the illegal trade in wildlife, an increase in the amount of information gathered about the commercialised species and financial returns from wildlife industries which may be used to assist other conservation objectives (Senate Committee, 1997/98). Only a small number of wildlife species have the attributes that make commercial use viable and kangaroos are a good example of a species that has commercial potential. Kangaroos are abundant and widely dispersed with a high rate of increase during favourable conditions. They are also well adapted to the harsh, fluctuating environment of the interior of Australia and produce unique, high quality meat and skin products. Use of wildlife as an incentive for conserving the species does not represent any radical departure for Australia’s indigenous people, as they have co-existed and depended on wildlife for thousands of years. This dependence produced a culture of sustainability by applying safeguards to the use of wildlife to ensure that resources were not depleted in ways that threatened options for future use, and produced mutual benefits for both Aborigines and wildlife. Kangaroos provided a source of protein and had other cultural uses for Aborigines. Preserving and using the knowledge that aborigines have of conservation of the environment needs to be used to develop co-management strategies in pastoral areas, where possible. The need to include them in employment and control in areas of environmental management is now being recognised (Turnbridge, 1995). However, the concept of using wildlife for commercial gain as a means of creating the incentive for the sustainable use and conservation of species and their habitat is a departure from the traditional European ideology of conserving species. Our traditional approach to conserving wildlife has been to set aside land as national parks or conservation reserves. But the supply of suitable land is limited and the costs of acquiring the land and managing it can be high. There is also growing doubt that the areas already set aside for conservation are large enough to sustain some species and habitats and that the protection of wildlife in national parks will necessarily ensure the conservation of biodiversity. We therefore need systems that put a value on wildlife conservation outside National Parks. ‘Practical experience from overseas has shown that in some instances, placing a value on endangered wildlife has ironically resulted in greater protection of that species than when it had no commercial value’ (Senate, 1997/98, Chap 1 pg 1). This is currently occurring in Africa where villagers living close to parks where animal culls are carried out have been permitted to utilise the meat and skins and are thus encouraged to report poachers (Tisdell, 1995). There are vast native resources to be found on private lands outside the public reserves. Much of this land in the rangeland region is used for livestock production. This is a highly competitive international market, with immense pressure to increase productivity. In the past this resulted in many areas being overstocked. The outcome was widespread land degradation, serious pollution of water resources and loss of biological diversity in many rangeland regions of Australia. A major driving force for sustainable resource management has been the loss of productivity in these rangelands. Sustainable use of wildlife is now recognised as an important strategy to

10

encourage landowners to consider the environmental implications of their management decisions (Ramsay, 1994). The important implications that commercial use of kangaroos has to conservation was formally acknowledged by the National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development. Objective 1.4 of the 1992 report is ‘to improve kangaroo management at the national level, including the removal of impediments to a sustainable commercial kangaroo industry’ (ESD, 1992). This was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in December 1992, with the goal to work towards an integrated and coordinated kangaroo management strategy (Ramsay, 1994). Although there are still many advances yet to be achieved, there have been many changes in kangaroo management since this report. These include recent legislative approval for kangaroo meat for human consumption, improved monitoring and control systems that provide better information to set and maintain sustainable quota levels, the establishment of accreditation programs for shooters, improved national standards for hygiene in kangaroo harvest and processing, the development of a National Kangaroo Industry Strategic Plan developed in 1997 and better improved responses by the Federal Government to media sources on ‘scares’ arising from animal liberation groups both in Australia and overseas. These groups have constrained the export of kangaroo products, particularly in European and North American markets making it necessary for both the Australian Government and Kangaroo Industry to deal with harmful media allegations. This thesis examines issues surrounding the use of kangaroos and reviews changes in the practices of Kangaroo meat consumption in Western Australia in recent years. The opening chapters of the thesis provide an introduction to the topic and argue the necessity for the sustainable use of Kangaroo meat for human consumption. The third chapter provides information on the kangaroo animal. The current barriers to increased use of kangaroo meat are discussed in the next chapter followed by discussion of the Rangelands issue which attempts to explain the necessity for increasing the value and use of kangaroo products. The following chapters on ‘The History of Kangaroo Use in Australia’ and ‘The Kangaroo Industry Today’ provide background information on the use and management of kangaroos. The next two chapters discuss the sustainability issues and the debate surrounding the use of kangaroos and Aboriginal relationships to kangaroos are briefly reviewed in chapter 9. Based on the assumption that the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption is linked to Australian attitudes, the thesis then looks at the changing directions of the current kangaroo industry and explores the attitudes and level of participation of wholesalers and retailers toward the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption in the marketplace in Western Australia today. In order to determine the current demand and attitudes towards use in Western Australia, two surveys were undertaken in Perth for this study. An extensive literature search and a series of interviews with industry stakeholders preceded the surveys. Industry stakeholders were contacted to identify and confirm local issues and matters of interest to be included in the survey. This also provided the opportunity to ensure that points of view that were relevant to local issues were taken into account in the composition of the surveys. 3. KANGAROOS, THE ANIMAL.

11

Kangaroos are grazing herbivores that are predominantly nocturnal. These large grazing animals can weigh up to 100 kg, have low energy maintenance requirements and are well adapted to survive on poor quality grasses. They produce only one offspring at a time and have a gestation period of about 35 days. Red kangaroos breed continuously throughout the year while Western Grey kangaroos breed on a seasonal basis (Wilson et al. 1992). Of the 48 species of kangaroo remaining in Australia today only 7 are commercially harvested. The 3 main species used for commercial use, The Red Kangaroo Macropus rufus, the Eastern Grey kangaroo Macropus giganteus, and the Western Grey kangaroo Macropus fuliginosus, make up over 90% of the commercial harvest and reach their highest densities in the sheep rangelands of Australia. Densities are highest in New South Wales and central Queensland and lower in Western Australia and South Australia. Low inconsistent rainfall drives a climatic system that varies widely from month to month and year to year in these semi arid lands. These varied seasonal conditions have created fluctuations in kangaroo populations from between 15 to 35 million animals over the past 20 years. Eastern Kangaroos have been the most abundant species but by 1996 red kangaroo numbers were roughly similar. Additional populations occur outside this area, mostly in the eastern highlands (Pople & Grigg 2001). There has however, been large increases in populations over the last 5 years. Latest population estimates released by the Federal Government put kangaroo numbers at 58.6 million. Kangaroos are now one of the most numerous large wild land mammals on earth (KIAA Feb 2002).

(Fig. 1) Kangaroos are one of the most numerous large wild land mammals on earth. (data source Australian government records) Kangaroo Industry.

The commercial species in Western Australia consist of Red, Euro and Western-Grey kangaroos. Red and Euro kangaroos occur in varying density over a range which occupies approximately 75% of the State, to the north of the South-west region, but their highest density is in the rangelands. This area receives less than

12

500 mm of annual rainfall and consists of mulga and mallee scrub, shrubland, woodland, grassland and desert. Red kangaroos seem to prefer open plains with scattered trees or shrubs. Nearly half of their range is too arid to support any pastoral and agricultural activities and consequently, it has been relatively unchanged by Europeans

(Figure 3). Density and distribution of red kangaroos determined from aerial surveys in 1980-82 (after Caughley 1987) Pople & Grigg 2001. Western Grey kangaroos occur in the South-Western and Nullarbor regions of Western Australia. The increase of watering points to aid the pastoral industry has been beneficial but populations have declined significantly where habitat fragmentation has occurred due to clearing for intensive agriculture and urban development in southwestern Western Australia. Their principal stronghold now is the State Forests (McNamara & Prince 1986). The action plan of Kennedy, 1992, for the conservation of Australasian Marsupials and Monotremes listed an increased geographic range since European settlement for the red kangaroo and a decline of less than 10 percent in the geographic range of the western grey kangaroo (Short,1995, pg3). There have therefore been huge changes in the population of kangaroos in Australia in the last few decades. From being a sparsely populated mammal, dependent on unreliable and inconsistent feed and water, the kangaroo has now become one of the most abundant wildlife species in the world. The attitude both nationally and internationally toward kangaroos is also undergoing immense changes. Attitudes are slowly shifting from being thought of as a pest species, needing to be hunted down and eradicated to one of being a sustainable commercial resource. However these attitudes are not shared universally and raise many controversial issues.

13

4. WHAT ARE THE CURRENT BARRIERS TO INCREASED USE OF KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?

Since the 1970’s, commercial harvesting of kangaroos has been regulated by state-based quotas set annually as a proportion of the previous year’s population, which allows a set number of kangaroos of each species to be harvested from each State.

14

This system is based on ensuring survival of the kangaroo species involved while allowing culling to mitigate their harmful effects on habitats. The quotas are based on aerial and other surveys and are in the general order of 10% of the estimated 30 million kangaroo population. However, there are huge differences in the kangaroo numbers that naturally occur in States throughout Australia. There is therefore also a big difference in quotas for each State. The 2000 quota for Western Australia is 30% of the quota for New South Wales and less than 20% of that for Queensland. The commercial drivers also differ in each state. The harvest in South Australia is driven predominantly by the game meat industry while the Queensland industry is driven by the skin market. New South Wales and Western Australia both have a mixture of pet and game meat as well as skin processors. The demand for kangaroo products therefore varies from State to State (Macarthur, 1996). Currently the pet food sector dominates the kangaroo meat market and utilizes in excess of 70% of all kangaroos harvested (KIAA, Feb 2002). At present it is illegal to commercially harvest kangaroos in the State of Victoria. However the State Government is being pressured to introduce a commercial kill to northern Victoria due to the problems of drought and the huge kangaroo population (Buttler, 2002). In 1999 there were 20 processors of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Australia with most of these in NSW and Queensland. Thirteen of these are licenced to export game meat. The actual number of kangaroos killed by commercial industry is primarily limited by demand and accessibility. It is difficult to obtain accurate estimates of total sales figures for kangaroos sold for human consumption. Significant data on export sales is readily available; however data pertaining to the volume and value of domestic market sales is limited primarily because of commercial confidentialities, concentration of ownership and the fluidity of the industry (McKinna et al, 1999). However the over-riding trend is the under-utilisation of the meat and quotas. The kangaroo harvest produces an excess of meat. More than half of the kangaroos shot commercially in Australia each year are used for their hides only, therefore meat consumption could be readily increased without more kangaroos being shot or quotas being raised ( Pople & Grigg, 2001). For example, only 58% of Queensland’s 2000 quota of 1.3 million kangaroos was used for meat; the rest were taken for skins only. Much of this meat is processed into pet food but there is still a large amount wasted (NEWR Feb 2001). In Western Australia, however, because of the use of mobile chillers, only about 2% of kangaroo carcasses shot by professional shooters are left in the field (Mawson, pers convers, 8/00). The gap between quota and harvest levels also show significant potential for increased use of kangaroo meat, e.g. quota levels for Western Australia were set at 434,000 for 1999 and 464,000 in 2000. However harvest levels reached only 199,250 and 194,000 respectively (Graph 1, Pg 36). These low harvest yields were generally due to market forces. Large distances between the harvest areas and markets, coupled with higher temperatures and lower human population densities present difficulties for increasing harvests in Western Australia. Although Environment Australia approved a 2002 national quota of 6.94 million; an increase on the 5.53 million quota for 1999, the actual harvest is unlikely to exceed the 3.5 million taken in 2001 (KIAA 2002). The current quotas are at record highs as a reflection of record high kangaroo populations but market growth simply has not yet caught up with this population growth. The major problem for increased use appears to be one of public perceptions. The industry has therefore been concentrating on

15

gaining acceptance of kangaroo meat for human consumption and increasing the market share of meat. Australian values and attitudes towards wildlife are extremely complex and varied and are related in many respects to the ethnic origins of the original settlers to Australia. ‘It was an enormous stroke of good luck for kangaroos that Australia became a British Colony and that the culinary art of this country was to evolve from an English cuisine. Kangaroos were considered an agricultural pest to be destroyed, not as a resource to be eaten, and only became defined as meat when our national food standards were introduced in 1995. For over 150 years Australians considered kangaroo meat as bush tucker for the dinner table when they were poor and down on their luck, or isolated in the bush. If the French had been the first to discover and colonise Australia, we would have a much more civilised attitude towards the use of game meats and the art of cooking them’ (Mulligan, 1995). Australians have inherited a skeptical and unenthusiastic attitude toward the consumption of Australian game meat from their cultural heritage. Negative perceptions include: a dislike of eating what is part of the National coat of arms; the ‘Skippy’ syndrome promoted by media interpretations of kangaroos as ‘cute and cuddly’; traditional attitudes that consider kangaroo meat is only fit for pet food or that kangaroos are full of worms and other diseases; lack of awareness and knowledge of current harvesting and processing methods leading to attitudes that conditions of preparation are unhygienic; and negative animal liberation lobbying that has influenced our attitude toward the commercial use of kangaroos (Purtell & Associates, 1997). Other consequences of our cultural background are our traditional attitudes toward raising livestock and kangaroos. The occupation of ‘pastoralist’ or ‘grazier’ is recognised socially as a respectable occupation, while being a kangaroo shooter is considered a lower class profession. Sheep and cattle are deliberately raised by pastoralists and graziers for the sale of meat and wool, yet kangaroos are considered economically worthless, and are often just given away. As a result, sheep and cattle numbers are maintained at optimum levels so pastoralists and graziers can receive maximum economic returns. This produces continual pressures on ecological and management systems to cope with the problems of land degradation and the maintenance of sustainable kangaroo populations. These traditional Australian attitudes have hindered the widespread development of a domestic game meat industry based on human consumption. However, recent decades have seen a slow shift in a slow shift in attitude toward the consumption of game meat. Many Australians now consider the commercial kangaroo industry compatible with the long term sustainable conservation of kangaroo populations. The ‘Skins-only’ policy of Queensland and Western Australia where only the skins are taken and the carcass is allowed to be left behind are increasingly being seen as the waste of a valuable resource we can no longer afford to tolerate (Pople & Grigg 2001). This cultural change in attitude is now creating both domestic and international demand for the consumption of kangaroo meat. But although kangaroo is accepted internationally as one of the finest game meats available, here in Australia we still consider game meats as meats for special occasions, dinner parties or eating out at a restaurant and not part of an everyday meal (Mulligan, 1995). Therefore it is not only our perceptions of kangaroo as meat fit for human consumption that needs to change, but also our

16

perceptions of kangaroo as a game meat, to be eaten only for special occasions that would need to alter before marked increases in kangaroo use will occur in Western Australia. The options for the market and sale of kangaroo meat in Australia therefore appear twofold. We could sell it, as Grigg suggests, as a specialty meat rather than as a substitute in competition with traditional sources of red meat such as beef or lamb, which a number of specialty butchers appear to be doing. This option provides opportunities for export in many of the wealthier European countries where game meat is eaten more regularly than in Australia. It may also be easier for those Australians who do not like the thought of eating what is an Australian symbol to accept it as a specialty product, eaten only by those who can afford to pay higher prices for it. However, as more Australians try and accept the product demand is likely to increase, raising the potential for a decrease in prices, resulting in a game meat with similar value to beef or lamb. This option therefore appears to have the potential to increase use as well as change perceptions over time. Or it could be marketed and sold at lower prices as a game meat in competition with beef or lamb that can be eaten as an everyday meal. Currently kangaroo meat is sold on average around 30% cheaper than beef. This makes it easier to sell to countries wanting greater quantities of beef at low prices or to Australians who think of kangaroo meat as a low value product. This has the advantage of finding a use for the resource but it does not help to increase the value of the resource. As Ramsey (1994) suggests, because of the elastic nature of demand curves for export kangaroo meat products, an increase in demand or supply would not increase market prices paid for harvested kangaroos. Therefore the result of initial marketing of kangaroo meat as a specialty product would appear to have a greater potential for increasing the value than marketing at a lower price in direct competition with beef or lamb. However this would still depend on successful marketing strategies and a significant shift in Australian attitude and eating behaviour.

5. RANGELANDS ISSUE

The geological history and mid-latitude position of Australia has produced a continent with large areas of arid or semi-arid conditions with poor, shallow soils and high species endemism. Erratic rainfall combined with extreme droughts has a profound effect on the composition and quantity of available forage. The impacts of modern livestock production systems with their domestic animals grazing on these

17

unusual features have resulted in severe and extensive land degradation and high native species loss over large areas of Australia. Studies to estimate the extent of rangeland degradation have concluded that ‘much of the substantially degraded land will become desertified if landuse and management do not change’ (Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap 7, Pg 5). Over the last 30 years Government Departments have conducted natural resource assessments covering about 87% of Western Australia. Results showed that 46% of the area was in good condition, 30% was in fair condition, 24% was in poor condition and 0.8% was severely degraded and eroded. Most of these rangelands are owned by the Government and leased out to livestock producers. Forty five percent of Western Australian rangelands are pastoral leasehold consisting of 504 pastoral leases. Unallocated Crown lands make up another 37% (ANRA, 2002)

(Map) Freehold dark brown, leasehold green. National Land and Water Resources Audit (ANRA) This has produced a ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin, 1968) mentality in the past resulting in overstocking and land degradation. This land degradation, combined with property sizes that are too small to be economically viable and low wool prices has contributed to the problems of farming in these regions. Livestock producers have to buy and sell stock when conditions demand. Increased watering points, fencing to control stock, improvement of livestock species and food supplements all contribute to the economics of the system. These improvements cost money and producers will try to recoup this by overstocking. In marginal regions, this often results in extensive land degradation. Reduced vegetation and the impacts of hard-hoofed stock result in wind and water erosion, and soil compaction by trampling which occurs mostly around water holes. These changes in turn affect the native biota with some species becoming extinct, while others favoured by the changes, such as kangaroos, have become agricultural pests (Aplin et.al.1996). Productivity in the sheep rangelands is increasingly threatened from land degradation due to grazing animals. Long-term productive use of the sheep rangelands depends on the introduction of good land management practices that minimize further degradation of the land. Major land-degradation problems in the Australian rangelands and methods to deal with them are known; however the value

18

of the land and the levels of production from it are very low and individual graziers find it difficult to be able to afford to do very much restoration work (Aplin et.al.1996). A significant percentage of land/lease holders in these regions have negative cash margins and are considered to be at great economic risk. Many have debts and property sizes which indicate they are not viable and the situation becomes worse at times when wool prices are low. Barson et al, 1993 estimated that there was possibly only 10% of properties that were large enough to provide long term viability under the current conditions (Sattler, 1995). Consequently, a strong recognition has emerged that land management practices must change. The two maps below show pastoral or sheep rangeland areas of Australia and areas where kangaroos are commercially harvested.

Distribution of Sheep in Australia in Sheep Rangelands

‘The sheep and wool industry's Pastoral Zone stretches throughout inland Australia across all states and territories. Sheep are grazed over 69 045 822 hectares in this zone. Pastures used in this zone are predominantly native, with localised improved areas spread throughout. In 1997, ABS estimated sheep numbers in Australia at over 120 million with 65 259 790 of these in the pastoral zone.’ (Map) Australian Natural Resource Atlas (ANRA)

19

Figure 14 Main area or zone in Australia where kangaroos are commercially harvested. Pople & Grigg 2001.

Relatively small numbers are harvested outside this zone including the Northern Territory, northern South Australia, far western Queensland and occasionally Victoria. Rangelands are very resilient however, and after a few good years of rainfall, bare and degraded land does recover and perennial grasses, which are the basis for sustained animal growth, grow very well. These grasses respond to the irregular rainfall conditions, and without these grasses, droughts occur sooner and last longer. Management of rangelands by pastoralists has improved in recent years with reductions in total livestock numbers; however, past overstocking has reduced total native shrub cover and produced more reliance on perennial grasses for food. This means that during drought, the condition of grazing animals rapidly declines, as there is not enough sustenance in the dry grass. (Freudenberger, 2000). Heavy grazing of native ground cover species has also allowed the infestation of woody weeds such as Mesquite (Prosopis sp), an introduced species. Under favourable conditions Mesquite forms dense thickets which displace native species and leads to increased erosion, loss of productivity and ultimately desertification. Gidgee (Acacia cambegei) is also a major woody weed problem for landholders with large areas of land in some areas of Queensland becoming degraded wastelands, devoid of pasture, subject to massive erosion and worthless as a habitat for native birds or animals. Since the 1950’s the spread of woody weeds has occurred in large semi-arid areas of Australia. Rains will stimulate the abundance of woody weeds that are of little value as food and crowd out annuals and edible perennials. Biological control, limiting seed dispersal by livestock and use of fire are considered the only long term sustainable solutions for management of woody weed infestations. Although mechanical and chemical methods to control woody weeds have been in use since the 1960’s, these methods have proved too expensive for widespread use and have not

20

achieved eradication. An integration of all these methods is currently being used for control in some areas (Rieks van Klinken, accessed 04/06/02). A sustainability issue often raised concerning sheep versus kangaroo impact on rangelands concerns the hardness of the feet. Kangaroos have two long, soft feet while sheep, cattle and goats all have four hard hooves that dig into and erode the topsoil. However, it is the total number of animals depleting vegetation and exposing it to erosion by wind and water that has the greatest impact. ‘In the absence of dingoes and in the presence of drinking water, kangaroos can become a significant part, (30-40%) of the total grazing pressure’ (Freudenberger, 1998). It is the impact from the total number of animals that creates damage to the environment and the hardness of the feet is only of secondary importance. Heavy grazing pressure on rangelands also results in many herbivores spending much time nutritionally deprived, especially under drought conditions. This creates animal welfare issues and emphasises the need for better rangeland management. The economic and ecological viability of integrating kangaroos into overall production on grazing lands is also questioned. A study by Shepherd (1983) analysing the option of intensive farming of kangaroos concluded that intensive kangaroo farming was not a feasible proposition given the low economic return for kangaroo products. However options that include grazing kangaroos in a rangeland situation may provide future possibilities. These could include a mix of sheep, cattle, goats and kangaroos or a simpler mix of sheep and kangaroos. Young and Wilson (1995), explored the option of a purely kangaroo enterprise within the semi-arid rangelands of Australia and compared it with a typical sheep property within this region. The study assumed that, kangaroo harvesting levels would be founded on optimum profitability taking into account rates of reproduction and growth and the intensive husbandry that would be required for sheep. Kangaroos would be contained within a single kangaroo-proof boundary fence. The study also assumed that kangaroo and sheep would forage on the same vegetation. This is a reasonable assumption for the northerly rangelands dominated by grasslands. However the dominant chenopod shrubs of the southerly rangelands are not readily eaten by kangaroos. Therefore the study would not be truly accurate for the whole of the rangeland region. Establishment costs were ignored as well as the potential for product diversification and tourism. The study found that if kangaroo prices per kilo to farmers were similar to sheep and beef, an extensive rangeland kangaroo farm in the semi-arid regions might be economically viable. However, kangaroos tend to reduce vegetation at the same rate as sheep and have been observed to effectively prevent regeneration when sheep have been removed. Therefore if the requirement is to regenerate rangeland vegetation by replacing kangaroos with sheep, kangaroo numbers would have to be strictly controlled, with the consequent need for higher prices for kangaroo products (Young & Wilson, 1995). Livestock producers are able to become involved in kangaroo harvesting either as a passive participant, obtaining a commission for access to kangaroos on their property, or as an active participant, who undertakes the harvesting themselves. This involvement needs to reflect a balance between the costs, such as those associated with harvesting kangaroos themselves or the maintenance of kangaroos on their property, and the benefits, such as those derived from their own harvesting activities or any increases in livestock production profits as a result of the decrease in kangaroo numbers. However, if conservation benefits are to be gained from the commercial use of kangaroos, traditional methods of rangeland livestock production will need to

21

be substantially reduced so producers can participate in harvesting. There are a number of factors that will influence the decision for pastoralists to lower domestic animal stocking rates even when their participation in harvesting may increase. The first is the profit they are able to obtain from each kangaroo harvested. This will of course, be affected by supply and demand interactions and the effects of non-market influences such as quotas. The development of such an environment would require the current quota system to be maintained, in order to limit the supply of kangaroos, as without a quota system, increasing demand would only increase the harvest rate and would not increase the price for each animal. This is because, in the current open-access harvesting system where harvesters work to supply demand, competition limits the price per animal to a minimum price which is set by harvesting costs and the minimum profit that harvesters will accept. Therefore, as long as supply is greater than demand, the price per animal will remain at this constant minimum, with harvesters increasing the number of harvested animals or allowing more harvesters to enter the industry as required by market demand. Because of the potential of industry influence on the agency setting quotas, it would however, be essential to maintain complete independence of the quota setting system from the harvesting and marketing components of the industry. Secondly, if conservation benefits are to be realized by producers increasing their participation in kangaroo harvesting, producers would need to be convinced that profits from the harvest can be improved by reducing domestic animal stocking rates. There is currently no clear data that links stocking rates to kangaroo density (Choquenot et al, accessed 04/06/02). Therefore increasing the value of kangaroos would require not only the realization of high value markets, but would also require a fundamental shift in the view that rangeland producers have of kangaroos. A downturn in more traditional extensive livestock enterprises, particularly wool production, has recently prompted many land/leaseholders to diversify their income by harvesting goats on their property. Some land/leaseholders are taking advantage of the steady demand for feral goats exported live to Muslim countries. Like kangaroos, feral goats are present over much of Australia with the greatest numbers also in the semi arid pastoral regions. They have been commercially harvested for about 40 years and provide a significant source of cash flow for many property holders. In 1992-93 feral goat meat and skin exports combined were worth approximately $22.2 million. However, under current management systems their densities are a threat to the ecological sustainability of some rangeland areas. Goats can consume many species of plant normally unavailable or not palatable to sheep and cattle, therefore feral goats have the potential to be more damaging than domestic animals to arid zone perennial vegetation. The hard hooves of the herd also breaks the soil crust; exposing the soil to erosion and reducing soil stability. The desired conservation outcome for a feral species is eradication, however experience in Australia and other countries has been that control programs have not been able to eradicate a feral species which has become abundant and widespread. If commercial utilisation is to be part of a control program this industry also requires long term sustainability with controlled harvest levels and effective conservation management that does not rely on market forces. The problem of market insecurity caused by Governments implementing eradication programs and undermining the industry also needs to be addressed. Management is, in practice, based on reducing feral goat numbers, hence it is also treated like a pest control industry. However, goat numbers have remained high

22

despite harvesting i.e. between 1987-1990 over 0.5 million feral goats were commercially harvested in WA, but the population was estimated to have increased by 64% during this period. To prevent populations increasing around 40% of the population needs to be removed each year. There is therefore a need to either substantially increase Government eradication programs or develop an industry that is economically sustainable and also achieves conservation objectives if Australia is to reduce the number of uncontrolled herbivores on these rangelands (Elliott & Woodford, 1995). However placing an economic value on goats may encourage maintenance of a pest density sufficient to meet harvesting needs and discourage attempts to control or eradicate a pest species, resulting in increased environmental or agricultural impacts in the region. This is proving a dilemma for some managers and management agencies that support greater control or eradication of goats in the rangelands. Priority for conservation in the rangelands has traditionally been low. Therefore the share of monies received is also very low and has resulted in little active management and high species loss. The consequent challenge is for ecological conservation to make itself economically relevant and thereby benefit the people of Australia. There are several ways this is occurring in the rangelands. Nature-based tourism is providing increased opportunities to develop sustainable economic use of resources in the rangelands. The economic value of inbound tourism to Australia was $16.1m in 1996 (14.5% of export earnings). Of these tourists, 22% were attracted to visit this country because of Australia’s unique wildlife and 11% stated they would not visit this country without it. Thus, wildlife contributes between $1.8 and $3.5billion of inbound tourist expenditure which equates to employment for between 14,700 and 29,500 people. (Johnson & Associates, 2000). Government Agencies have also developed partnerships with private ecotourism operators, some of which are Aboriginal. Joint ventures between Government Agencies and Universities allow paying volunteers to participate in field work with research scientists (Armstrong & Abbott, 1995). The recognition of genetic information represented in National Parks and Reserves allows us to put a tangible value on the species within these. An example of this is the successful partnership between the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) in Western Australia and an Australian pharmaceutical company to develop the commercial potential for an anti-HIV compound extracted from species Conospernum (Proteaceae). These ways of using natural rangeland resources also offer the potential to provide funding to conserve and manage biodiversity in the rangelands.

23

6. THE HISTORY OF KANGAROO USE.

People discovered Australia at least thirty thousand years ago. The land was less arid than today and contained many species of large mammals. Climatic changes, the rise and spread of hunting cultures and the introduction of the dingo have all contributed to a slide in population of most of these large mammals, some to extinction. The advent of pastoralism also added to an inevitable pattern of extinction (Caughley et.al. 1987). Kangaroos are one of the few remaining large mammals to survive and their ability to adapt and take advantage of these rapidly changing environments has resulted in them being one of the few wild mammals that have been able to expand their population numbers. Kangaroos were hunted by Aborigines as a source of both food and skins for many thousands of years and they may still take kangaroos for food or for cultural purposes. Early European settlers also hunted kangaroos for meat and skins and farmers still use kangaroo meat for farm dogs or for their own consumption in place of meat or mutton. Major exploitation did not start until the 1850’s with trade mostly in skins. Early settlers were never troubled by kangaroos because the water supply, even after settlement was never permanent, or if wells were sunk the water was drawn by hand and administered to stock. Around the 1950’s the progressive changes wrought by European agriculture altered much of the habitat occupied by kangaroos. Large areas of forest country were cleared and species of grasses better suited to agriculture were sown. The provision of permanent water, improved grazing opportunities, the extermination of dingoes from most areas except central and northern Australia and the controlling of the once huge bushfires, all advantaged the large kangaroos allowing them to dramatically increase in numbers until some species became pests in agricultural areas. They were considered vermin, and legislation in the latter part of the 19th century encouraged their destruction through a system of bounties (Hrdina, 1997). Hunting therefore became a means of control. In order to make better use of the resources of meat and skins, rather than leave them to rot, or as food for feral animals, an industry was developed. Thus during the 1950’s, as a consequence of land use, commercial kangaroo harvesting evolved as a means to utilize excess resources and to pay for costs associated with the increasing impact of kangaroos (Senate Committee, 1997/98). In Western Australia, the skin trade evolved as the primary reason for harvesting kangaroos. Between 1935-36 1.25 million red kangaroo skins entered the market in Sydney (Prince 1984a). Large ‘roo’ drives by local landowners resulted in the slaughter of many thousands of kangaroos and a growing concern arose at the enormous wastage of such a valuable resource. Following the introduction of myxomatosis in the 1950’s that depleted rabbit numbers, the kangaroo meat trade for human consumption was introduced and meat was exported, primarily as a game meat. During the late 1950’s kangaroo meat became a significant industry product. In 1964 The Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia (KIAA) was formed to promote the interest of the commercial kangaroo industry with a liaison role between Government and industry. Between 1955 and 1969, a substantial export trade in game meat was established. This was aided by a large number of chiller boxes used by the kangaroo industry and contributed to a dramatic increase in offtake. Mounting public concern for the millions of kangaroos being destroyed forced Governments to pass laws to control the harvesting of kangaroos. The Western Australian Government introduced harvest controls in 1971. State Government management plans were developed and commercial harvest was restricted to licensed commercial shooters,

24

operating with quota limits on harvests and controlled through a tagging system. This system remains in force today. In December 1974 the Red kangaroo, Western Grey kangaroo and the Eastern Grey kangaroo in mainland Australia were listed as threatened species by the United States and the commercial importation of kangaroos, their parts and products were banned. After an improvement in kangaroo management programs and survey techniques by Australian States, the ban was lifted and an export trade was resumed in 1981, under supervision of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries. However kangaroos were still listed on the U.S. list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, making their commercial use more susceptible to ‘environmental’ bans. It was not until April 1995 that these three species of kangaroos were delisted from the U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Short, 1995). This ban reflected concern about the effectiveness of population monitoring, which has now been resolved, and the extent to which the harvests may have been impacting adversely upon kangaroo populations (Pople & Grigg, 2001). This ban on exports by importing countries during the 1970’s was due to poor meat quality, contamination and parasite infestation and resulted in reduced harvest offtake. Trade was not resumed until 1981 under Government supervision. Other factors that influenced harvest numbers were; the demand from graziers for pest control, during drier years animals were easier to shoot, and increased unemployment in rural areas leading to people taking up kangaroo shooting. By the mid-1980’s the quota had become the principal limiting factor for the harvest of most species of kangaroos in Queensland. However since 1982, campaigns against kangaroo exports by animal welfare groups have also affected market demand and limited export growth (Pople & Grigg, 2001).

Figure 21 Harvest offtake of red and western grey kangaroos in Western Australia, 1915-1996 (modified after Prince 1984a). Pople & Grigg 2001.

The shooting of kangaroos in the field has raised considerable concern as an animal welfare issue, which questions whether current methods of killing are being

25

conducted humanely. The RSPCA conducted a study in 1985, which concluded that harvesting methods were one of the most humane forms of animal slaughter because the animal is killed in its own environment, under less stress than domestic livestock. There were however concerns about the level of head shots. If kangaroos are shot in the head it means they are killed instantly and do not suffer any pain. The RSPCA therefore considered this a desired practice. Accordingly a Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos was developed. There has also been considerable focus both nationally and internationally on the hygiene conditions of field shot animals. As a result of these concerns, the Standing Committee on Veterinary and Public Health (SCVPH) Hygiene Standards were introduced in 1996, and an accreditation program for kangaroo harvesters was introduced in 1998 to ensure harvesters and processors operate safely and efficiently within the Codes of Practice. The accreditation program for harvesters means that shooters must now pass a government approved course that includes hygiene and animal welfare and a vehicle and firearm inspection (Pople & Grigg, 2001). The Kangaroo Industry has established training programs where people are taught to be trainers. There are generally two trainers that come over to Western Australia to train the shooters (Mawson 30/8/00). Although the bulk of kangaroo meat sold for the domestic market is for pet food, currently there is a growing market in game meat for human consumption. In 1980 a small domestic market for kangaroo meat for human consumption was opened in South Australia (Caughley et.al. 1987). In Western Australia and New South Wales the sale of kangaroo meat, other than for pet food, was not permitted until 1993. The reasons it was prohibited for human consumption for so long are complicated, but a significant factor has been a fear by producers of traditional red meats that kangaroo would become an important competitor for beef and lamb (Pople & Grigg, 2001). However under current quota restrictions and kangaroo farming constraints, this fear appears unreasonable. Switala (1995) calculated that approximately 57,000 tonnes of kangaroo meat would have been available if the 1993 quota had been taken fully. In the same year, about 2.8 million tonnes of other red meats were used in Australia, which means that a full quota of kangaroo meat would constitute only about 2% of Australia’s annual red meat production. In March 1995 a new standard C1 of the National Food Standards Code was approved defining game meat as a food, enabling kangaroo meat to be sold in close proximity to other meats. Prior to this time kangaroo meat had to be segregated from other meats despite comparable meat inspections for kangaroo and domestic meats (Pople & Grigg, 2001). Since then meat hygiene standards have been implemented with the introduction of uniform National Standards. All processing premises are now licensed by the Meat Hygiene Authorities and subject to the same level of control as for domestic animal abattoirs. Uniform Export Micro Standards have also been implemented which is an Australian Quarantine Inspection Service regulation and means that export kangaroo meat now has the same certification as beef (Payn & Associates, 2000).

7. THE KANGAROO INDUSTRY TODAY.

26

Since the Grigg report in 1995, a marketing program has been introduced by the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, (KIAA) and the proportion of harvest used for human consumption has increased steadily. In 1990, estimates for human consumption of meat were 5% of the total harvest; by 1996, this had grown to over 25%. Meat exports have now doubled over the last five years (Payn & Associates, 2000). In 2000, around 37% of the total harvest for Western Australia was sold for human consumption (Franolich per. con. 31/10/01). National kangaroo meat exports have increased by 30% in 2000 and 33% in 2001. However a key issue arising from this increase in growth is that 60 per cent of Australia’s total meat production and nearly all the skin production is still being sold offshore, with exports going to 40 different countries. The industry therefore appears to be focusing most of its growth on export markets. Mr. Kelly from the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia considers that ‘Australians are overcoming the idea of the ‘Skippy syndrome’, and may be starting to understand the sense in producing kangaroo meat and skin to be sold within Australia’. (Peters 2001). However the process of changing behaviour within Australia appears to be slow. Another key issue arising from the current market situation is the role of management in the kangaroo industry. There is an understandable reluctance by processors in the industry to start paying for a product, which has previously been given freely by landholders. There is also a general reluctance to encourage new processors for human consumption into the industry. (Pople & Grigg, 2001). A 1996 review by Macarthur Consulting Pty Ltd, undertaken for Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation (RIRDC), considered that because of the limited supply and the need for a more professional industry it was necessary to restrict processing licences in the short term to ‘enable current industry players to establish a more mature industry’ (pg 29). These factors may be having a significant impact on the process of change. In Western Australia it is considered necessary to have a reasonable number of processors due to the large size of the State and the commercial viability of transporting kangaroos long distances (Mawson, per convers. 12/03/01). This State currently has only one processor for human consumption and one skin processor, but has over 20 processors for pet food. Significant changes have occurred in the Management and Commercial Use of kangaroos in Australia. The1984 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 requires prior approval of management plans by authorities, Environment Australia, before kangaroo products can be exported. This means that although individual States have responsibility for wildlife management within their state boundaries, the export of all wildlife or products is controlled, under the act, by Environment Australia, in consultation with the Federal Minister’s Scientific Committee on Wildlife Use, who then give advice, and get approval from, the relevant Federal Minister (Environment Australia, 1999). The Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) is responsible for the management of kangaroos in Western Australia and the management program is prepared in consultation with the State Kangaroo Management Advisory Committee, the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority, Agriculture Western Australia and with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife on a five-yearly basis (CALM 1998-2002). As of 11 January 2002, new provisions relating to the regulation and management of wildlife trade have been included in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Commonwealth now has approved management programs for the harvest of

27

kangaroos in the five States with the Federal Minister now having responsibility for setting quotas limiting the number of kangaroos of a particular species that can be harvested annually (Environment Australia, 2002). The aims of the management program are to maintain viable populations of kangaroos throughout their natural range, to minimize the effects of kangaroos on pastoral and agricultural development, to maintain populations of kangaroos at levels that will not produce long term impacts to habitat, and to manage the species as a renewable resource. The program achieves this by conserving kangaroos on national parks and nature reserves as well as on lands used for primary production. The management program is structured using three methods of control; a restricted open season, commercial harvesting by professional shooters and a mitigation licence issued to landowners. Control of the program is enforced by Wildlife Officers and CALM staff (CALM 1998-2002). This is feasible because of the relatively small numbers of people involved in the kangaroo industry and the difficulties involved in secretly obtaining and dealing in large quantities of kangaroo meat and skins. There is also little incentive for illegal trade at present when the quotas are not being reached; but this could change in the future. However as no checks are made on the numbers taken by landholders under a mitigation licence, the permit is taken by many landholders as an unlimited license to shoot kangaroos. This shows that more assistance with kangaroo control may be needed, beyond what is currently provided by the commercial industry (Grigg 1995). Currently there are about 1,800 kangaroo harvesters nationwide (Peters, 2001). The harvesting of kangaroos is carried out at night by licenced shooters in 4WD using powerful spotlights and high-powered rifles. Work is done at night as kangaroos will stand, transfixed, if caught in a beam of high-powered light, making them easier to shoot. Because of the costs involved, such as time, petrol and ammunition, there is a significant economic incentive for shooters to kill kangaroos with a single shot in the head. If the kangaroos are shot in the head they die instantly and do not run away. Therefore the shooters are not forced to pursue the animal in their vehicle and use more ammunition to kill the kangaroo. Kangaroo shooters have therefore gained an impressive reputation for their shooting skills as a marksman (Pople & Grigg, 2001) Kangaroo meat has become a routine component of the menu in many top restaurants or as novelty pies sold through bakeries or butchers, and is also included in many bush-tucker retail outlets. Local butchers have also supplied a limited home market for meat and smallgoods. A major advancement in November 2000 has been the inclusion of kangaroo meat products by Woolworth's and Coles chain stores. Perceptions are undergoing change with the realisation that the meat is not only a very good game meat but also has nutritionally desirable attributes. Kangaroo meat is high in protein and iron and has only 1-2% fat. Many of these fats have been proven to help break down blood vessel blockages, thereby lowering blood cholesterol (Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap 7). Increases in our knowledge on kangaroos are slowly helping to change traditional attitudes. A study completed in 1997 to determine consumer perceptions on the human consumption of kangaroo meat showed that 22% of people were concerned about the possibility of worms or disease in kangaroo meat (Purtell, 1997). However from the point of view of diseases transmitted from animals to man, kangaroo compares with other domestic livestock very favourably. Postmortem inspections to determine whether carcasses are fit for human consumption show very low rejection rates. ‘Of over 200,000 kangaroo carcasses inspected for export as game meat, less

28

than 7% were considered to have some form of pathological condition’(Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap 3, pg 8). This rate is one third to one quarter of the normal levels for sheep and cattle. The likelihood of humans getting infections from kangaroos is very low. The knee worm P. roemeri is a highly host specific organism and thus it is completely incapable of being transmitted to other animals when digested in kangaroo meat (KIAA, Feb.1997). Kangaroo populations do carry Toxoplasma gondii but their infection rates are considerably less than rates for sheep and pig populations. This difference lies in the rapid mortality that results when kangaroos are infected with toxoplasmosis. Infection is also highly correlated to rainfall and given that kangaroos are harvested in arid rangelands and areas of low rainfall, the likelihood of infection is low (KIAA, Feb. 2001). Being a wild animal the meat is also free of chemical residues and is low in contaminating bacteria. Diseases that affect domestic animals such as mad cow disease are also unlikely to be found in free range animals. However, these positive qualities may be lost if kangaroos are farmed. Determining Sustainable Levels of Harvesting. The aim of sustained-yield harvesting is to harvest a population without jeopardising future yields. However the high adult survival rate, low fecundity rate, late attainment of reproductive maturity and general long life of kangaroos means there is a long time series of data required for the dynamics of kangaroo populations to be adequately described and understood. This makes managing sustainable harvest levels difficult and is particularly pronounced for kangaroos that live in the more unpredictable environments of the rangeland areas. Therefore, in order to judge the effectiveness of current management activities and to identify whether management goals are being met, a method of tracking the harvest of kangaroos using regular estimates of the population size is used. This is the variable quota system that has been established throughout Australia. Effective management also relies on understanding what drives the dynamics of a population which is determined by monitoring the fluctuations in the population. Monitoring techniques involve direct monitoring to determine the population size, which entails counting actual animals, and indirect monitoring which infers the size and trend of the population. This is done using counts of animal signs, such as scats or tracks or from information about animals from harvesters. This information allows wildlife managers to set a range of harvest quotas under a range of harvest conditions to maintain sustainable populations and produce a sustained harvest yield (Pople & Grigg 2001). To harvest a sustained yield from a population at steady density rates, the population would first need to be manipulated somehow to advance its rate of increase. This could be achieved by reducing it below its ecological carrying capacity or supplementing its resources. Harvesting reduces the size of the population. Therefore the greater the harvest rate, the smaller the population becomes. The theory of harvesting relies on the regulation of the population by a combination of reproduction and mortality rates to enable certain population densities to be maintained. The mortality rates of harvesting are seen as being compensated to some extent by the reduction in natural rates of mortality and an increase in fecundity rates. However harvest rates could easily be raised to a level where extinction occurs. There are therefore many levels at which harvests can be maintained at sustained yields but only one maximum sustained yield, taken at ecological carrying capacity. Maximum sustained yield (MSY) can be used as a benchmark when discussing sustained yield harvesting. The sustained yield will be determined by the relationship

29

between the population and its resources and a logistic model has been calculated for population growth by Caughley and Sinclair (1994). However these calculations are based on equilibrium populations and in the markedly fluctuating environments of arid and semi-arid Australia these logistic models may be wildly inaccurate. When used on red kangaroos by McCarthy (1996), the models showed that if environmental variability is ignored, sustainable harvest rates are overestimated. They showed that population density was a very poor predicator of rate of increase for red kangaroos in particular. However it has been found by Caughley et al. (1984) and others that food supply, measured by pasture biomass or rainfall, correlates strongly with rate of population increase (Pople & Grigg, 2001). Studies developed by Caughley (1987) found that rainfall is the driving force on pasture biomass and that kangaroo populations go up and down according to the degree of pasture biomass available. He also found a strong dependency cycle between pasture biomass and kangaroos that regulates the growth of each other. There was a reduction in pasture growth as biomass increased and a reduction in pasture biomass as kangaroo density increased. He therefore determined that where populations fluctuate, the optimal harvest strategy may be to vary harvest rates. This theory is consistent with present management programs using total grazing pressure, that are based on trial and error and the necessity for frequent monitoring (Caughley 1987). The measurement concept of ‘total grazing pressure’ (TGP), was developed as a management strategy to determine the maximum grazing pressure at which each region is able to maintain a level of vegetative cover that will prevent erosion and declining rangeland condition. It also determines the mix of animals, i.e. sheep, cattle, kangaroo and goat, which will generate that pressure. It is complicated however, by the fact that these animals do not always eat the same vegetation. Although some of the vegetation that kangaroos and domestic stock eat is the same, there are significant differences in their diets. Furthermore, the degree that their diets overlap varies with the vegetation type, seasonal conditions and the species of kangaroo. Therefore this management system requires the control of all animal numbers including domestic stock, feral animals and wildlife. Currently only 15% of the kangaroo population is harvested. Sheep represent 30-50% of the total grazing pressure while kangaroos represent around 30%. It is estimated therefore that by reducing the ratio of sheep, the sustainable population of kangaroos on pastoral land could be allowed to increase by up to 2/3 without increasing the TGP. However, total grazing pressure needs to be managed carefully if long term objectives of continued efficient production and conservation of native vegetation are to be successful. Further research to provide increased knowledge on the economic and ecological impacts of co-grazing of sheep and kangaroos on pastoral land is therefore required (Johnson & Associates, 2000). In this respect the kangaroo industry is can be seen as an important management tool for ensuring the environmental sustainability of the rangelands. Without control, kangaroo populations would be at least 30% higher (Caughley, 1987) and would present a major extinction threat to a large range of species. (Payn et.al, 2000). There is a general agreement of the need to control all animals in these pastoral regions. However, controversy remains over the levels set for different animals, with pastoralists wanting to stock more livestock and reduce kangaroo numbers. ‘There is also increasing opinion that says kangaroo populations should be managed on a zonal catchment area within a zone basis’ Macarthur (1997, pg 39).

30

New South Wales and South Australia have implemented this approach. This allows populations to be determined for individual zones and enables quotas to be allocated on a zonal basis with different harvest rates. Therefore some areas are able to be harvested at much higher rates than others. The industry is provided with more reliable data to work with, thus allowing improved rangeland management procedures. However the costs and difficulty of administering this quota system is increased (Ibid). Queensland and Western Australia do not use this method. The high quality rangelands and much higher population densities of South Australia make this method of monitoring a feasible option. New South Wales also has better quality grasslands and different types of pasture resulting in a need for more intensive monitoring to ensure TGP is not exceeded in some regions (Mawson per convers. 12/03/01). The vast rangeland regions and low population densities of Western Australia currently make this option unviable. However proposals have been put forward in Queensland to divide their quota system into three individual regional allocations. This has raised concerns amongst kangaroo shooters who fear they may be left without a way of making a living if the quota limit for their region is reached (ABC Regional News, 2002). Macarthur, 1997, also suggests that the different drivers, climatic and geographic issues that impact on the supply and demand in each State are not catered for under the current management arrangements. He suggests that this macro approach is misleading as in some areas a quota of 15% of the population may be totally inadequate to achieve resource management, pest control and industry viability goals. He therefore suggests that quota numbers could be transferred between States to assist with the problem of supply. However many local industry players do not agree with this proposition as they feel that because quotas can be dropped at any time, this would just create problems of conflict due to competition for supply. Harvest totals have not reached the set quota for Western Australia yet; however in 1996, 79% of the quota was harvested. (See Graph 1. pg. 36). ‘When we reach a stage where harvests equal quotas on a regular basis, transferring quotas between States would become very difficult’ (Pond, pers. convers. 08/03/01). However in good seasons when an oversupply of kangaroo numbers are not able to be adequately utilized by local processors, the possibility of transferring excess supplies to processors in other States appears to be a resourceful alternative. The scale of environmental degradation problems faced by Australia is so large they are virtually beyond the resources of the government alone to address them so the active involvement of the private sector is vital. A project initiated by the Australian Museum entitled Future of Australia’s Total Ecosystem (FATE) has therefore been established. The objective of this project is ‘to test by experiment whether commercial use of native plants and animals can increase conservation and long-term survival of biodiversity, enhance productivity of agricultural systems and the economic and social viability of rural communities’ (Wilson, April 2001). The trial will focus on kangaroos but will also include other species of native birds and reptiles. The project will involve the trial of alternative management options on privately controlled rangeland and will focus on improving the conservation value of the landscape and encouraging tourism by producing indigenous products such as kangaroo meat and leather, rather than products from exotic animals such as wool from sheep. Factors such as economic viability, attitudinal changes to conservation and environmental benefits to the land itself will be monitored by the project (Ibid).

31

Another project currently being funded by The Murray Darling Basin Commission is to counter arguments against the commercial use of kangaroos by conservationists who believe that the kangaroo harvest will alter the genetic diversity of the population by selectively harvesting large males. This project will enable the outcome of a range of management strategies and their effects on all ‘stakeholders’ to be predicted. It will be able to show what kangaroo population densities are required to enable a harvester to take any specified mix of age or sex of kangaroos in an average night of shooting without it affecting the diversity of the population. An interesting aspect already highlighted by the data is that most properties will have areas of ‘refugia’. These are inaccessible areas which have very little harvest pressure, where the terrain is rough or covered in dense timber. Kangaroo populations reduced by harvesting are able to be replenished by kangaroos from these areas and thereby maintain their genetic diversity. The project will has already allowed the project team to determine the effects that kangaroo populations have on grazing enterprises such as sheep or cattle. (See page 37). (KIAA, Sept 1999). The kangaroo industry has moved from being an industry based on the use of resources that are the result of a pest control management system, to one of being a commercially based, sustainable use of a resource in its own right. However, current Government regulations and management of the kangaroo population often inhibits regulation changes and results in industry development being ahead of the regulatory structure in some cases. If Government and the industry are to fully embrace total sustainable management of kangaroos, they must implement systems that manage the overall resource situation. This involves the integration of sustainable management systems for rangelands, kangaroo populations, agriculture and the kangaroo industry as well as the interests of the community (Macarthur, 1996). The development of this environment relies on the maintenance of the current quota system to limit supply. It is therefore imperative that any Government based regulatory system relying on quota setting and monitoring remains completely independent of the harvesting and marketing components of the industry. This is necessary to prevent any development of ‘symbiosis’ between the agency setting the quotas and the kangaroo industry. This provides a strong argument for government involvement to be maintained in the management of kangaroo harvesting (Pople & Grigg, 2001). The Quota System In the vast and thinly inhabited state of Western Australia, kangaroo populations are monitored by estimations from aerial surveys every year using a system divided into three zones. One zone is surveyed annually. Only sample portions of the other two zones are surveyed. A management program based on survey results controls the commercial harvest through a variable annual quota system. The commercial harvest quota assessment also includes a variety of data such as ground surveys and patrols undertaken by CALM Wildlife Officers and staff of Agriculture Western Australia, and analysis of data gathered from monthly returns for kangaroos taken commercially. Past and present population trends, climate conditions, current land use practices and the habitat and population outside the commercial harvest, such as those in National Parks, are also used to determine annual quotas. These methods are designed to take account of the amount of kangaroos taken outside the commercial quota such as the non-commercial take under the open season provisions, Aboriginal taking, illegal taking and disease (CALM 1998-2002).

32

Commercial harvest figures do not generally reach the approved quota as they are based on the demands of the market and the capacity of the industry to harvest the quota level. Nationally, the harvest quota usually totals about 15-20% of the estimated kangaroo populations and on average around 80% of the commercial harvest quota has been harvested annually.

(Figure 3). Population, quota and harvest levels for red and grey kangaroos only (Pople and Grigg 2001)

In the last five years however, the quotas have markedly increased and the numbers of kangaroos harvested have been on average 47-50% lower than the annual quotas, with proportions ranging from 35% to 75% for each State. The increase in quota is primarily due to the growth in kangaroo numbers in recent years and a desire by the States for quotas to be set at the estimated sustainable yield level, which would have been around 9 million animals in 2001. In 2002 kangaroo harvest quotas were set for 6.9 million; an increase of almost 1.5 million animals from the 2001 quota approval. The number of kangaroos harvested in 2001 was around 50% of the approved quota, therefore the number of kangaroos harvested in 2002 is expected to be around 2-3 million. However this quota still represents less than 12% of the estimated populations of the seven kangaroo and wallaby species that are commercially harvested and demonstrates the large increase in kangaroo populations in recent years (Environment Australia, 2002). If the full quota were taken, kangaroo numbers would be lowered by approximately 40% compared to what the carrying capacity population would be if there was no harvesting. The full quota for red kangaroos was reached

33

from 1985 to 1996 in Queensland and in recent years in New South Wales.

(Figure16a) Harvest and Quota for Red Kangaroo in Queensland. Pople & Grigg 2001.

Although there have been fluctuations, over the past 22 years the national harvest of each kangaroo species has been increasing, but then so has the quota as a proportion of the population (Pople & Grigg, 2000). As a result of this the national quota for 2000, shown in the table below, of nearly 5.5 million is nearly double that for 1980 of 2.8 million. Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Kangaroos Killed Under Commercial

34

Quotas – National Quotas Harvest Quotas – National Figures

Grand Total Year Grand Total Year 1980 2,885,000 1980 2,088,760 1981 3,032,500 1981 1,643,967

1982 3,316,000 1982 2,284,045 1983 3,143,000 1983 1,745,795 1984 1,988,000 1984 1,480,143 1985 1,986,000 1985 1,869,249 1986 2,673,600 1986 2,171,936 1987 2,804,400 1987 2,460,497 1988 2,949,800 1988 2,552,348 1989 3,589,900 1989 2,585,323 1990 3,966,650 1990 2,763,250 1991 4,238,800 1991 2,912,823 1992 5,207,700 1992 2,816,649 1993 4,804,100 1993 2,976,198 1994 4,170,100 1994 3,293,227 1995 3,636,556 1995 3,260,448 1996 3,723,000 1996 3,101,123 1997 4,353,800 1997 2,289,687 1998 4,090,140 1998 2,592,776 1999 5,682,146 1999 2,600,139 2000 5,516,225 2000 2,746,402 2001 5,528,202

(National Quota and Harvest). Environment Australia.

This is considered sustainable under present management systems (Pople & Grigg, 2001). John Kelly, the Development Manager for the Kangaroo Industries Association believes that if present growth rates of the Kangaroo Industry continue, national quotas will probably be fully taken on a regular basis within 10 years. If value adding of kangaroo products is also increased, it is possible that harvesting of kangaroos could take over the sheep industry in these areas within the next 20 years (Kelly, accessed 05/06/02). Today in Western Australia current restrictions on increased harvesting for human consumption include; competition for harvest areas with established pet food companies, the economic viability of access to kangaroos in remote areas, heavy rains that prevent the transport of carcasses to processing plants and a shortage of trained shooters (Franolich per. convers. 8/6/01). The quota for Western Australia, set for total grazing pressure, has actually doubled over the last two years because of the abundance of rain in the past five years and kangaroo numbers have tripled in WA. However the shooters are only harvesting a limited number because they are not able to drive off road to shoot the kangaroos for certain months of the year because of the wet ground. There is also reduced market demand for skins as the market has declined with the fall in the South East Asian economy (Mawson, per. convers. 30/08/00). This is illustrated in Appendix 1 where we can see a decline in skin

35

exports to countries such as Japan, Malaysia and Philippines. Pet food sales have also stagnated in the last few years (NEWR, Feb 2002). The harvest in Western Australia therefore did not follow the increased quota. In 1999 the kangaroo harvest, which is set by market conditions, was only 46% of the quota set by environmental conditions. In 2000 this difference was only 42%. Graph 1.

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN KANGAROO HARVESTS

0

50000100000150000200000250000300000350000400000450000500000

Quotas

Harvest

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01

A worrying side effect of the significant increase in kangaroo populations is the increase in motor vehicle collisions with kangaroos. This is resulting in concerns over the economic and social impacts of motor vehicle collisions with kangaroos. ‘There has been an explosion across Australia, in the number of insurance claims and accidents involved hitting animals, resulting in an extraordinary amount of insurance claims made’. Kangaroos head the list of animals most hit on Australian roads (Basey, 2002). It is difficult to obtain accurate figures on the number of traffic accidents involving kangaroos because of the lack of detailed statistics identifying kangaroos as the direct cause of cause of an accident. Insurance companies are also very reluctant to reveal this information (Johnson & Associates, 2000). A lot of expertise and knowledge is necessary to manage kangaroo populations that respond to fluctuating environmental conditions. During drought conditions constant monitoring is carried out as authorities attempt to modify quota systems to balance kangaroo populations and deteriorating habitat conditions. However, studies (McLeod, 1999), indicate that existing harvests have relatively little effect on the magnitude of population fluctuations. In comparison, the effect of taking the full quota appears to greatly reduce the average density and size of the fluctuations. During drought conditions this would mean there was more forage available for the remaining animals, which would therefore reduce the number of kangaroos that were affected by the drought. Because of this factor Caughley (1987), suggests that if kangaroo harvests were increased before drought conditions this would help to reduce the impact of the drought for the remaining animals. He also states that the present commercial harvest that is driven by demand, fails to meet the stated objective of damage mitigation for landholders. He considers that existing evidence suggests that if the full quota were regularly taken a better balance between the often-competing objectives of kangaroo management for the commercial use of kangaroos, agriculture and kangaroo conservation in Australia would be attained. However the problem of who removes the kangaroos then arises. Caughley proposes that the costs of removal, monitoring and enforcement be deducted from any profits made from the kangaroos

36

and the net figure balanced against costs to pastoral production of having the kangaroos remain. This estimate is to be based on empirical data of the real impact of kangaroo’s on the whole pastoral system. However, justification of marginally improving a pastoral industry by removing kangaroos at public expense would be difficult, he suggests, if that pastoral industry were already in debt to the public purse overall. Harvesting under quota systems is currently controlled by licenses issued to a small number of commercial shooters who are provided with plastic tags. These tags are species specific with yellow tags for Red Kangaroos, white tags for Western Grey Kangaroos and blue tags for Euros. They also have details of sex and weight of animal it is attached to. This provides monitoring and control of the numbers of kangaroos harvested in each species. All animals harvested must have these plastic tags fixed when sold to the abattoirs. Tags are only purchasable from State Authorities where strict records are kept and only issued to accredited and licensed harvesters (CALM, 1998-2002). There are problems that arise from this system of tag distribution however. In South Australia tags must be prepurchased, resulting in overestimation, with some processors left holding excess tags at the end of the season which need reimbursement. In other states harvesters obtain the tags and problems of hoarding have arisen where some shooters return excess tags at the end of the season (McKinna, 1999). In Western Australia there is a restricted open season which means that for a short time landholders or leaseholders can cull kangaroos on their property without applying for official permission, but they cannot take for commercial use unless they hold a damage mitigation licence which allows landholders to cull a set number of kangaroos on their property and sell them on the commercial market (CALM, 1998-2002). However, with the big increase in kangaroo population numbers in recent years it is probably very likely that farmers have increased their illegal shoot. This generally occurs in crop growing areas around harvest time when the kangaroos can come in and flatten large areas of crops very quickly (Franolich, per. convers. 30/08/00). Landholders are required to declare returns of damage control numbers taken. This is declared on a form stating where kangaroos are being destroyed and why and the numbers that are shot. Authorities therefore know how many are taken both commercially and for damage purposes, but they do not know how many are taken illegally or during the open season (Mawson, per convers. 30/8/00). There is also conflict in the sheep rangelands, which have about 15% of Australia’s sheep and where most of the three commercial species of kangaroo reach their highest densities. The potential or actual, threat of competition for pasture with sheep is behind the reason for most ‘damage mitigation’ permits in this area. Studies have shown that competition is unlikely in good seasons. However competition for preferred food, such as grasses and herbaceous plants is to be expected when food is scarce (Caughley 1987). The critical issue is whether or not there is economic harm to sheep production due to the presence of kangaroos. It is difficult to accurately assess costs of kangaroos to agriculture but a study by Gibson and Young, 1988, found that individual landholder’s perceptions of their losses totaled $A113 million or 3% of the gross agricultural production in areas under the national kangaroo management program (Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap 7, Pg 5). The recent study recent study completed by NSW Agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin found that harvesting of kangaroos for maximum yield may increase the long-run average clean wool production by up to 25% per head of sheep. This is possible because it would

37

increase the period of time when pasture biomass was above a level where wool production is not likely to be limited by forage availability. However this result probably represents the upper limit of productivity gains per head that are achievable and relies on kangaroos being harvested at maximum sustainable yield, which is about 10% of the total population (about the current quota levels) (Hacker et al, 2000). A need for much more research to resolve questions about the effects of competition between sheep and kangaroos has been identified as well as the need to determine appropriate land management practices to encourage rangelands rehabilitation. This is essential if rangelands are to maintain or recover economic productivity, and reverse the increasing trends toward desertification that could lead to the long-term decline in kangaroo populations.

8. THE ISSUE OF SUSTAINABILITY.

Today the commercial use of kangaroos in a sustainable manner is considered compatible with the long-term conservation of their populations by both Federal and

38

state governments (Senate Committee, 1997/98 Chap 1.). Sustainable use is defined by The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), an international organization with a membership that includes many government and non-government agencies from over 115 countries as; ‘Use of a population or ecosystem at a rate within its capacity for renewal and in a manner compatible with the conservation of the diversity and long-term viability of the resource and its associated ecosystem’(Senate Committee, 1997/98, Chap.1 pg.9). They also conclude that ‘use of wild living resources, IF sustainable, is an important conservation tool because the social and economic benefits derived from such use provide incentives for people to conserve them’ (KIAA, Dec 2000). However the view of ‘sustainable’ may depend on who is presenting the view and how the limits of a particular ecological or economic system are defined. There are three ways we can approach this. Firstly, how, and to what extent, does the current generation take into account the welfare of future generations? Because sustainability involves a long term perspective, considerations are to a large extent about the welfare of future generations. We could just look at passing on particular assets such as kangaroos or agricultural soils in their current condition even though this could limit our current income. Preservation of these assets may provide a much greater range of development options for future generations. However, it will generally be true that the more restrictions there are on the ways we are able to use our current wealth stocks, the less our current income is likely to be. Lower current income generally means fewer savings and less opportunity for developing new technology and new forms of wealth therefore even if we retain these individual assets such as soils or kangaroos, a smaller stock of wealth may be passed on to future generations. Therefore while it may appear sensible to preserve options for the future use of natural resources, such preservation may actually limit the financial choices available in the future (Rose, 1992). This argument of course raises issues about whether it is fairer to hand over natural capital or technological/ economic capital to future generations. Sustainable use implies that both types of capital are rationed as a trade off. The current situation in the kangaroo industry means we are currently not using all our available resources, but shooting them and leaving the carcass to waste in the field or not utilizing the full harvest quota. Instead we raise alternative beef or sheep at added expense to both the economy and the biological system to replace this native resource. We are therefore failing to use our wealth stocks and provide current wealth so we can develop new technology and new forms of wealth for the future. If this industry is built on sustainable harvesting, the issue of passing on natural capital to future generations should not arise. Secondly we need to determine the level at which questions of sustainability are to be considered; whether they are at individual property, regional, national or global levels? Social costs are generally above individual property level. Therefore to determine the social costs of agricultural production systems and the practices of individual producers, we need to ascertain the effectiveness of commodity prices and other market signals arising from these activities as well as the ecological effects that ensue from these production activities. And thirdly, this means that sustainability of agriculture needs to be considered in terms of its interrelationship within the economy and its interactions with the environment at all these levels (Ibid).

39

Many land/leaseholders in the rangeland regions of Australia have a mix of livestock enterprises on each property. These mixes, and the technology used in these enterprises alter with changes in prices, technology and the ecological systems they are based on. This means that land/leaseholders must be able to sustain a sequence of enterprise combinations over time and adjust to the relative input and output prices. The same issue applies to ecological sustainability. Sustainability of the ecological environment would be defined more in terms of maintenance of life-support systems and biodiversity levels. Rangeland livestock production in Australia has enormous impacts on ecological systems and raises significant questions about the ability of land/leaseholders to be able to adjust to changing environmental conditions over time and sustain the necessary ecological support systems. So the question of sustainability is not whether these enterprises are economically viable or ecologically sustainable in the short term, but whether they are able to be sustained and adapted to the long term changes that are occurring externally. Therefore ‘sustainability may refer to the ‘resilience’ in economic and ecological systems - the ability of the established system to adapt to change’(Rose, 1992, pg 130). This principle is highly relevant to rangeland pastoralists who have to be extremely flexible to survive erratic weather conditions and fluctuating market systems. This relevance also extends to new ways of conceptualizing livestock production and new ways of incorporating income into land producing systems. To include kangaroo production into agricultural incomes will require new and innovative processes. Generally, direct harvesting has a greater potential to be detrimental to wildlife than farming. It does appear possible to farm kangaroos intensively but there are technical difficulties to overcome. These include handling difficulties such as rounding them up for drenching or branding or the relatively slow rates of growth compared to sheep or cattle. (Caughley 1987) ‘Sheep go to market at 9 to 14 months old for meat, cattle are slaughtered at approximately 12 months to 2 years of age. But even at 3 years of age kangaroos are not very large’ (Stacker, 1988). However intensive farming of kangaroos could also have detrimental impacts on wild populations. Farmed animals are generally selectively bred to suit market conditions and often lose the traits that confer ‘fitness’ in the wild. These genetically divergent animals may compromise the genetic fitness of wild populations if released back into the wild environment. Captive animals are also kept in close confinement which may intensify their susceptibility to disease. If these animals are allowed to escape or are let free in the wild, the potential arises for transfer of diseases to wild populations. Kangaroo farms would therefore need a reasonable area of land to limit density rates and farmers would need to ensure captive-bred animals are not released back into the wild (Senate Committee 1997/98). Wildlife in Western Australia are legally allowed to be farmed, and this includes kangaroos. They can be fenced efficiently; they tend to go under, rather than over fences (Mawson, per convers. 30/08/00). Why are Kangaroos a Sustainable Proposition for Commercial Use? The Red kangaroo has evolved breeding strategies that take advantage of good conditions by producing young in rapid succession. The female may have a joey at heel; an offspring attached to a teat in the pouch and a dormant embryo (embryonic diapause) from which another young develops to replace the pouch offspring as soon as it leaves the pouch. This ensures that with the return of good conditions, young can rapidly be produced. Studies by Caughley (1987) found that Red kangaroos conceived within two weeks of the breaking of the 1982-83 drought. This remarkable

40

adaptation is possible because during the early stages of life, the young kangaroos have very small nutritional requirements from the mother. When weather conditions deteriorate, reproductivity is reduced and the young which are newly emerged from the pouch, are the first to perish, followed by the pouch young. The previously dormant embryos are born, but they survive only if conditions improve. It is only under extreme conditions of prolonged drought, when no effective rain has fallen for 2-3 years that mating ceases altogether. Fourteen days after rain the females are in oestrus and breeding recommences Kangaroos have evolved these strategies to enable them to adapt to the erratic climate of Australia’s arid and semi-arid climate. The first census in New South Wales estimated the number of Red kangaroo to be 2.1 million in 1975-76. The population size increased due to good seasonal conditions and reached a peak of 5.7 million in 1982 despite an annual cull of 5-10%. During 1982-83 a harsh drought, the worst on record, halved the numbers and reduced them to 3.4 million. By 1987, the population was higher than pre-drought numbers. Because kangaroos are of a sedentary nature and will remain on their home range and die as pasture decreases, these huge reductions in population density are seen to be in response to declining seasonal conditions, with current harvesting programs having little effect by comparison (Lunney, 1986). These highly adaptive reproductive strategies allow kangaroos to take advantage of favourable conditions and increase their ability to maintain population numbers, making them a good proposition for commercial use in rangeland regions. Fluctuating climatic conditions in these arid and semi-arid regions impose a boom-bust economy for land/leaseholders and their patterns of land use must be adapted accordingly. The seasonal breeding and low reproductive rates of sheep and cattle make livestock production difficult in these semi-arid conditions. Technology predicts drought conditions, and excess livestock are sent to other regions or the abattoirs to be killed so the land can be left fallow until conditions improve. This results in large time-lags before economic production can resume. The best stock for this region would therefore be opportunistic species adapted to the arid zone, such as Red kangaroos that are able to rapidly respond to increased feed, allowing farmers to readily compensate for lost income (Ibid). However, large fluctuations in kangaroo populations in response to erratic climate conditions makes management of a market system that demands consistent quality and quantity of supply difficult. If the economic value of kangaroo products is increased and kangaroos are included as part of the livestock production of a property, similar management strategies such as those used for domestic livestock, may need to be expanded to include kangaroos. This may include supplementary feeding for indeterminate periods during droughts or when pasture protein is low and reduction in stocking rates when dry conditions prevail (Clark and Cottam, 1995). What effect does harvesting or farming have on Kangaroos? Changes in kangaroo numbers is usually attributed to changes in land use and environmental factors rather than harvesting as such, although harvesting may influence both the dynamics and the composition of kangaroo populations. The main environmental factor that determines kangaroo numbers is rainfall. The mobility of kangaroos mean that animals removed from the population through harvesting will be replaced rapidly by immigrants moving within their home range from adjacent unharvested populations (Pople & Grigg, 2001).

41

In the arid and semi-arid zones of Australia, during food shortages and in high density populations, kangaroo populations have wildly fluctuating populations with poor juvenile survival rates and widespread male-biased mortality rates. This results in higher rates of population increase. Harvesting of a population at a fixed rate ie. 10-15% of the population, should therefore moderate fluctuations in kangaroo populations by maintaining reduced population densities, resulting in more food available for the remaining animals during food shortages. Studies by Pople (1996) in western Queensland found that during drought, breeding success and juvenile body condition and survival rates were better on harvested properties. Caughley (1987) suggests that the optimal harvest for a sustained yield is male-biased and not age-selective. Therefore a population with its composition weighted toward females or the reproductively mature age classes, has a greater potential rate of increase. However, because shooters are paid according to carcass or skin size, and dealers set minimum carcass weights and skin sizes, there is always a strong male and age bias in commercial shooting. This may change the social organisation of a population through the removal of males >10 years old who in unharvested populations, appear to have the greatest breeding success. A reduced number of older females are also found on heavily harvested properties. This may alter the adult age structure and therefore the reproductive output, by increasing the proportion of inexperienced breeders in the population. Competition among males would also be reduced, potentially compromising the female selection of suitable mates. Selective harvesting is difficult under free-range conditions where shooters work at night and at great distance from the kangaroo. However where the population could be harvested selectively by age or sex, the MSY can be increased by increasing the numbers of mature reproductive females. ‘Kangaroos exhibit hierarchical promiscuity with males of higher social rank copulating more, and with more females than subordinate males. A reduction in the proportion of males in the population up to some threshold will therefore clearly increase the MSY for kangaroos’ (Pople & Grigg 2001, Chap2 pg 4). However, the effect of selective harvesting to raise the potential rate of increase of the population by altering the sex ratio and increasing the number of mature females may become overwhelmed during drought, resulting in too few males. This would naturally place more pressures on females with a greater number of pregnancies. Therefore the compensation of a selective harvest over an unselective harvest would be greatest during times when food was abundant because the reproductive rate in the population as a whole is increased. A more stable population would benefit the kangaroo industry as it would provide them with a less variable supply. However fluctuations in numbers are important ecologically due to the environmental variability of semi-arid and arid environments. If harvesting were to be carried out at unsustainable rates, this may affect a population’s genetic structure and may produce changes to the overall size of the population or the degree or frequency of the fluctuations that occur in a population over a period of time. However, studies have not found any differences in harvested and nonharvested populations and this is thought to be due to the high mobility, and therefore rapid recolonisation rates of kangaroo species (Pople & Grigg, 2001). Long term research that monitors a range of harvest rates on populations, covering the full spectrum of environmental conditions continues to be carried out. ‘A long time series of data is necessary to account for the lack of replication and imprecision that is unavoidable in such field studies’ (Pople & Cairns, 1995).

42

Farming kangaroos may also affect genetic diversity due to the tendency to select only the most economic varieties for farming. Those animals found to be uneconomic are liable to be allowed to die or be killed. Therefore the natural diversity is reduced. The appropriation of habitat favoured by wild populations for farming may destroy their geographical range, which may also lead to reduced genetic diversity (Tisdell, 1995). Are there Alternative Means of Pest Control? The cessation of controlled commercial harvesting would limit the ability of governments to oversee and regulate harvesting or culling for pest control. Their ability to enforce limits on the numbers of kangaroos killed would be restricted and the ability to observe evidence of cruelty would be reduced. The difficulty in assessing the effectiveness of commercial harvesting in the role of pest control is that it is a measure of perception. There are not yet any quantifiable measures that effectively allow us to determine increases in sheep production or pasture regrowth as a consequence of pest controls. Alternative methods of pest control such as electrification of watering points, has some success but was found to be dependent on drier conditions to be successful. Immunocontraception has also received attention but is unlikely to be of significant value in the sheep rangelands because it is likely to be too expensive, the logistics are too difficult (ie it could only be effective in small areas), and it creates the risk of extinction. There is also no suitable delivery mode except by injection. (Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap. 7 pg 11). If an excessive drop in population occurs due to severe drought, it might be very difficult to increase population numbers again. Therefore the biological and ecological impacts must be fully assessed before contraception is considered as a possible control measure. Arguments Against the Conservation of Wildlife through Sustainable Use. Many people argue against the commercial use of kangaroos. These arguments include the notions that if humans maintain or conserve a species only because it is useful, then if it becomes unuseful or is less useful, humans may no longer value and conserve it. Another argument is that the use of wildlife concentrates on the species level seemingly to the exclusion of their habitats or ecosystems. (Bennett, 1995). These are valid arguments and past history tends to verify them somewhat. However, the use of kangaroos in Australia may actually assist in conserving habitat as well as other species. Commercial use may reduce abundant numbers of kangaroos that impact on the habitat of other native herbivorous marsupials such as bettongs and wallabies. Placing an economic value on kangaroos may also encourage land/leaseholders, and provide them with the economic ability, to maintain or increase habitat that supports a diversity of species, by placing an economic value on kangaroos. Profits from these commercial enterprises may also be used to assist with maintaining existing habitat and establishing new areas. Present attitudes consider kangaroos either as ‘cute’ or ‘symbolic’ animals to be protected, or as agricultural pests to be destroyed; or they are not considered at all. Increased commercial use provides the opportunity for many people to find a ‘use value’ for kangaroos. It therefore presents the possibility for increased awareness and empowerment to promote accountable management systems that support sustainable populations and to advocate for and assist with, preservation and growth of habitat. (Pople & Grigg, 2001). High standards of living in Australia compared to countries such as Africa, discourage the need for poaching and the highly developed

43

management and enforcement systems already established for the commercial use of kangaroos, suggest that sustainable use of kangaroos is a long term possibility.

9. THE DEBATE

44

Kangaroos pose a problem for conservation agencies in Australia and overseas due to their high conservation value, their abundance and the recognition that they are regarded as a serious pest by graziers. The destruction or commercial harvest of any wildlife is likely to be controversial, especially one that is so appealing and readily identified as a national symbol of Australia. This has therefore led to organized public campaigns and considerable debate about their commercial use. This public scrutiny has resulted in a valuable outcome for management programs and kangaroo harvesting. The debate has focused on the philosophy behind and the operational aspects of kangaroo management, such as research and monitoring methods. This has led to improvements in management practices and public accountability. It has resulted in Management Programs that are based on scientific research and monitoring, and the use of harvest quota systems to balance land-use requirements with the continued existence of all kangaroo species (Pople & Grigg, 2001) The differing management goals of pest control, conservation and sustained yield harvesting create controversy and need clear and objective definitions to be able to judge clearly the success or failure of each goal. For example, the objectives for pest control need to be stated in terms of reducing the impact of the population, eg. increasing plant biomass or increasing the condition or density of the competitor, rather than simply reducing numbers of the pest animal. The aim of conservation would therefore be to preserve the genetic diversity of the population and the quality of its habitat, and the aim of sustained yield harvesting would be to harvest the population without jeopardizing the future yields. Once these goals are established, technical goals for achieving them can be decided (Ibid). However, debate has been raised on whether the present technical goals set up in the form of Codes of Practice are accompanied by sufficient resources for monitoring and enforcement and therefore whether they work. Concerns also arise over whether the current systems of voluntary Codes of Practice have sufficient legislative strength, and whether industry has adequate self-regulation, to protect the welfare of individual animals that are subject to commercial use (Senate Committee, 1997/98 Chap.6). Therefore, to make sure the commercial use of kangaroos is sustainable, it is essential to ensure that legislative controls and industry practices are accompanied by strict monitoring and enforcement actions. The potential for detrimental impacts to kangaroo populations under the present direct harvesting system does depend on how well the activity is managed and on the ability of agencies to monitor sustainability. The alternative to this system is farming. This is a closed cycle system and is often thought to have more neutral environmental impacts. However, this practice raises the issues that controlled, selective breeding may alter the original genetics thereby producing a more domesticated animal that is more susceptible to diseases and does not produce the flavour of game meat (Senate Committee, 1997/98 Chap.9). Therefore, because the desirable nutritional attributes, namely, low fat and cholesterol levels and freedom from chemical residues, may not be obtained in farmed individuals, it is important for meat to come from free-range kangaroos in their wild undomesticated state (Pople & Grigg, 2001, Chap 7). Intensive farming also negates the conservation benefits of kangaroo use because the land is still modified for pasture and crop growth and is therefore subject to the environmental effects that arise from this type of land use. Extensive rangeland farming within a single boundary fence therefore appears a better option, with limited kangaroo numbers to allow foraging on natural vegetation.

45

Another issue that arises with the use of wildlife is the changes to the complex predator/prey relationships within the food chain. A significant change in the number of one species may have an impact on a range of other native species. These changes are very subtle and occur over long time spans and, because of their diffuse nature, are difficult to measure and often only detected when ecological systems are irreversibly altered. Controversy over the commercial use of kangaroos is also fueled by the fact that they are susceptible to the vagaries of climate and their reproductive capacity in the wild is unpredictable and cannot be controlled. Commercial markets that are established to utilize this resource rely on established demand which does not decline simply because a natural disaster has reduced supply. This then creates pressure on management systems to increase supply and may result in unsustainable practices (Senate Committee 1997/98 Chap 1). Similarly, rapid industry growth is based on the ability of industry to supply increases in market demands. This has the potential to lead to over-capatilised enterprises with excessively high harvest quotas to protect this industry investment. The ideal of ‘sustainable use’ therefore needs to be supported by regulatory mechanisms to ensure adequate controls are in place to make sure that overharvesting does not deplete wildlife resources or their essential habitat. ‘Policies which permit properly regulated sustainable use of wildlife to occur on privately owned, leased or crown land, have the potential to provide practical, economic incentives for land/lease holders as they can see the economic value of native fauna and the natural habitats that support them’ (Bridgewater, 1995, pg 12). Oversupply of wildlife resources during good seasons, on the other hand, would lower the prices producers received, and may negate the issue of economic incentives for natural habitat conservation. However, implicit in this approach is the ethical issue of sovereignty. Some argue that policies need to be introduced that confer a form of ‘ownership’ on wildlife that is managed on private or leaseholder land, and supported by management and trade systems. This would enable landholders to derive an equitable share of benefits gained from the use of wildlife. They believe the issue of property rights needs to be legislated for by Government so that economic benefits do not continue to go solely to industry. This would reduce the perception of wildlife as competition to livestock and the necessity to destroy habitat (Bridgewater, 1995). This may need to occur to ensure industry players share in profits from this free public resource. Competition between kangaroos and livestock generally results in pastoralists eradicating kangaroos or destroying their habitat to reduce the conflict. Pastoralists in some regions still show little regard for conservation, particularly in areas adjacent to native parks and reserves. Because of insufficient maintenance, many of these areas present fire hazards and are reservoirs for native wildlife. This wildlife includes kangaroos which overflow onto neighboring farmlands causing crop damage. As a result conflicts arise creating polarisation between pastoralists and local communities over the need for conservation. If these conflicts are to be resolved, both local land users and community interests will need to be included in sustainable management strategies. (Ibid). Arguments against commercial use of wildlife include the idea that we should not eat meat at all and that vegetarianism is a more environmentally friendly diet. Besides the fact that most meat-eating people would not consider this idea, wide-scale cereal cropping contributes considerably more to environmental problems such as soil

46

erosion, soil salinity and soil structural problems than grazing livestock. For every kilogram of wheat produced in Australia it has been calculated that we lose 7 kg of topsoil. Alternatively, the production of free range kangaroo meat would have minimal effect on the environment (Kelly, Dec 1999). It is inadvisable to rely on market forces that drive the use of wildlife, to maintain sustainability, because they are not regulated by a need to conserve the resource. Therefore if the harvesting of a renewable resource is to continue indefinitely, it needs to have a control mechanism that is totally independent of the industry that is using that resource and is not influenced by the economic interests of the industry. The history of regulation of the use of resources has shown that the regulating authority can very easily become locked into a symbiotic relationship with the industry to the detriment of the resource. This has been demonstrated in both the whaling and forestry industries in Australia (Pople & Grigg, 2001). In Western Australia the quota system is currently used as a control mechanism and is set and enforced by CALM, an independent Government authority. However there is controversy over this system. Some conservation groups such as The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) do not accept that the quota system is accurate or unbiased, claiming that harvests of some kangaroo species often exceed the quota. They also claim that if the quota was a true tool of management, harvests should fluctuate from year to year rather than the steady increase that has occurred since the 1970s (Senate Committee, 1997/98 Chap.9, Pg 6). On the other hand pastoralists often tend to consider that quota levels are set too low to prevent kangaroos from destroying local crops and fencing or competing with livestock for feed in times of drought. The situation that has developed is therefore a compromise between the kangaroo management goals of harvesting, pest control and conservation. Yearly quotas are set high enough to achieve purposeful reductions for pest control, but low enough to avoid further lessening in numbers to maintain conservation goals. However this system is complicated because, the extent of pest control allowed is restrained by the high conservation value of kangaroos, and by the number of kangaroos that are significantly affected by the rainfall and subsequent pasture growth (Pople & Grigg, 2001). The Ethical Debate The commercial use of wildlife as a conservation tool is not universally accepted and controversy exists among all levels of society as to the degree to which commercial use of wildlife is appropriate and to its effectiveness as a conservation tool. Individual members of the public accept or oppose the commercial use of wildlife depending on their ethical stance i.e. whether they believe it is morally or ethically right to use wild animals under given conditions. There are however, different levels of acceptance. A crucial point concerns the decisions that people make based on their degree of education and awareness about the management of wildlife utilisation, the ways it can assist conservation and the potential for reducing detrimental impacts. This debate is like many issues that pit conflicting values of instrumental qualities against intrinsic worth. The debate centres around the questions of human beings as part of, or separate from other living things, the inter-relatedness of all species and the right of humans to use other species for their benefit and the detriment of other species. Some of those who argue against the commercial use of native wildlife have the view that some animals have an intrinsic right to exist and should not be subject to

47

any form of commercial or other use by humans. Others have a philosophical view of the intrinsic value of wildlife and feel that its preservation is essential and that protecting the natural world is the right thing to do. There is however a clear hierarchy of intrinsic worth for Australian wildlife where the most attractive mammals, the ‘warm and cuddly’ species, are considered to have greater intrinsic worth than others such as reptiles or frogs. This has resulted in the commercial consumption of some animals, such as crocodiles and emus, but not others like koalas. Other people, including many scientists and government officials, hold a more utilitarian viewpoint and believe that under certain circumstances such as the present kangaroo situation, and with appropriate regulations, the commercial use of wildlife is not detrimental to the species or the environment. In fact they see it as aiding conservation because they believe it provides an incentive for preserving the species and its habitat; a viewpoint also shared by myself. Finally there are those involved in the industry who fully support the commercial use of wildlife. There is however, a much greater regard for the sustainability of the species in the industry today, and stringent government regulations result in more control of the wildlife industries. These industries believe they play a role in pest management and providing employment and flow-on industries, especially important in rural regions where the effects of global world markets and land degradation are impacting heavily on rural businesses. (Senate Committee, 1997/98). These impacts have resulted in declining productivity leading to reductions in the economic viability for many farmers in marginalised regions; the same areas that could benefit from an improved kangaroo industry by enabling them to broaden their income base. The increased acceptance of kangaroo harvesting by many conservation groups concerns many of those who are opposed to the commercial use of wildlife and the debate is becoming increasingly polarised. This may be because it involves our core values and because both groups have a different focus. Those philosophically opposed to the commercial use of kangaroos focus on the importance of the individual animal. Animal liberationists who argue from this perspective usually consider that animals are ‘sentient creatures', which we have no special rights to use. They believe that the interrelationships among individual animals, and how harvesting might disrupt these relationships, are not considered. They believe that wildlife use is promoted in order to conserve genetic stock. This is considered to be a ‘zoo-like’ definition of wildlife use, where the animal represents the gene pool of the species thereby defining it as a kangaroo, which dismisses the contextual definition of the animal such as its relationship in family groupings, place and community. This attitude is considered to focus on the numerical rather than the individual and opponents are calling for changes to definitions used in frameworks in which wildlife are accounted for (Alvarez & Rogers, 1997). The problem for people holding this view is that it uses a different language, making it difficult for many of those with a different viewpoint to understand. Opponents also argue that the commercial use of wildlife turns living things such as animals into commodities. This commercialisation changes our perception of wildlife so that a wild animal is less wild and therefore different once it is treated as a commodity to be used, or disposed of, without any thought as to whether it has an intrinsic value for its own sake (Senate Committee, 1997/98). According to this viewpoint, to domesticate ‘wildlife’ or to view it as a human resource means that the quality, which is most valued, ‘wildness’, is irrevocably lost. Consequently this view

48

argues that ‘wild things’ have inherent value because of their ‘wildness’. The act of farming or owning wildlife therefore brings things under human control and removes their ‘wildness’. By valuing wildlife instrumentally as renewable natural resources it is argued that wildlife preservation of species for which no such value can be demonstrated, is challenged, and that we thereby stop regarding kangaroos as part of our wildlife heritage (Preuss & Rogers, 1995). Those conservationists who agree with commercial use focus on the importance of the population as a whole. This conservation ideology attempts to incorporate current socio-economic systems in long-term ecological strategies that maintain genes, populations and ecosystems for future generations. They see it as an enterprise providing a strategy to partially or totally replace traditional livestock production practices with activities that allow natural habitats to recover while still providing an income to the landowner. We see therefore that there is more than one ethical starting point. Our own position is not the only ethical one and those on the other side of the argument are not motivated by an agenda which is unethical. Our decision to use native wildlife should always be undertaken with the view that non-human species have intrinsic worth. Commercial utilisation of kangaroos is based on competitive market forces driven mostly by individual self-interest with little guarantee of an end result that ensures collective interest. We need to ask ourselves whether the long term solution for ecological conservation and biological diversity can be placed in the hands of a market system with conflicting objectives. Sustainable use of our wildlife contains many complex and often contradictory ethical issues. It is therefore essential that we are very careful in our efforts to maintain sustainability and that we take into account both human and non-human values when we deal with our biological world (Senate Committee, 1997/98). 10. ABORIGINAL RELATIONSHIPS TO KANGAROOS.

49

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) came into force in 1993 and in the same year the draft National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity was presented. ‘Both documents made reference to the importance of indigenous traditional knowledge of wildlife to recovery programs and the roles that indigenous people play in the conservation of biodiversity’ (Bennett, 1995). Like many Australians, Aboriginal people express utilitarian attitudes towards wildlife. However, unlike non-Aboriginal people who have a utilitarian perspective, Aboriginal people believe in a system that directly relates to their religious convictions and perceptions of themselves as custodians of their traditional lands and the wildlife of those lands. This system of extended moral rights makes them responsible for the welfare of wildlife as well as giving them the right to kill and use wildlife for subsistence (Aslin and Norton, 1995). Our increased awareness and understanding of the environmental impacts of colonisation has produced a growing interest in traditional Aboriginal methods of relating to the environment. Many Australians now consider Aboriginal people should be involved in all aspects of environmental management and control. However, this is often based on a belief that paints traditional Aboriginal philosophy and practice in European terms. Attempting to apply ‘traditional Aboriginal methods’ today is hardly possible due to the vastly different physical, religious and socio-cultural environment. However, Aboriginals ought to be involved in modern resource management, but their involvement should not be based on idealistic views of traditional ‘conservation’ or false understandings of the nature of Aboriginal attitudes and practice in relation to the land (Turnbridge, 1995). Of course this then raises issues about who gets to determine which Aboriginal understandings are appropriate to modern resource management. Today the 1975 National Parks and Wildlife Act allows Aboriginal people the right to continue their traditional uses of land or water for hunting or food gathering and for ceremonial and religious purposes. However, this right does not include use for sale. Aboriginal people are not given any specific rights to commercial use of wildlife and the right is subject to the regulatory power to conserve wildlife, even if a regulation affects the traditional activity. They are therefore subject to the same processes as anyone else. ‘In Western Australia, Aboriginal people may take wildlife while upon crown land and any other land that is not a nature reserve or wildlife sanctuary’ (Haigh and Coleman, 1995, pg 49). They must also obtain consent if the land is occupied. However they are not allowed to take more than what they need for food for themselves or their family and they are not permitted to take endangered species. They are, however, allowed to sell kangaroo skins that are taken while traditionally hunting (Ibid). Kangaroo meat is sometimes supplied from the local market to Aborigines for cultural celebrations, who will sometimes request specific species if they have lived in certain areas of Western Australia where those species were eaten (Franolich, per. convers. 30/08/00). In some areas where kangaroos are prolific and market access is available, opportunities for Aboriginal kangaroo management enterprises exist. With careful management by controlling fires, improving pastures, increasing watering points and reducing predation, it would be possible to increase numbers and provide viable economic options for some Aboriginal communities. By increasing their involvement in kangaroo management, Aboriginal communities can contribute to effective marketing of kangaroo products, public education, and the efficient maintenance of

50

sustainable kangaroo practices. Increasing the sales of meat for human consumption will help to increase the value of kangaroo products, enabling Aboriginal communities to improve their welfare and lifestyles (Wilson et al., 1992).

11. CHANGING ATTITUDES AND INDUSTRY DIRECTIONS. The kangaroo industry is still operating in a complex environment where a number of emerging issues point to the possibility of ultimate changes in the nature of the

51

industry. These issues include market impacts on agricultural commodities, the recognition for better management of rangelands, a shift in paradigm from one of kangaroo pest control to one of sustainable resource management and the conundrum of competing interests of conservation, pest control and agriculture. The recognition of game meat and game meat products as ‘food’ for human consumption under the National Food Authority Standards Code was a significant advance for the Kangaroo Industry. This development, combined with the Standing Committee on Veterinary and Public Health (SCVPH) that set new hygiene standards has resulted in greater harmony and uniformity of game meat standards between States. The industry in the past has been characterized by a few major players, mostly in the pet food and tanning sectors, with a small number supplying game meat. The general oversupply of kangaroos and the small market has produced strong competition in both the domestic and export markets. This has resulted in individual players developing separate markets that produce variable levels of success. A highly protective market has therefore been created to preserve individual market investments. However, over time companies have come to realise that they cannot do everything themselves. They now recognise that there is a need to work together with other industry stakeholders and the Government to solve the problems that impact on industry participants and to fulfill the Government’s management strategies. The result has been a vast improvement in communication and understanding both within the industry and between the industry and government (Macarthur 1996). There has also been recognition by the industry that landholders are an integral part of the process. ‘One human consumption processor in South Australia started doing this to get more ‘country’ (increase the area his shooters were harvesting kangaroo from), but he found it to be uneconomical. Other processors have not attempted to pay landholders as there is not considered to be enough profit in the industry at present to do this’ (Pond, per. convers. 08/03/01). This would appear unlikely to occur in the near future in Western Australia due to the fledging industry in this state. South Australia has a number of licenced processors who have been processing kangaroo meat for human consumption for many years, whereas King River, the sole processor for human consumption presently operating in Western Australia, has only been operating for around four years. Another difference between the states is that in South Australia the tags go to the processors and in the other states they are distributed to the shooters. However the study by Macarthur (1996) suggests that tags should go to landholders. He considers this would benefit the industry and kangaroo conservation as this practice recognises the landholder as part of the industry, giving them responsibility to manage kangaroos as a sustainable resource and ensure continuity of supply to processors. Recently South Australian pastoralists have started charging harvesters a royalty to take kangaroos on their land. However this may be illegal, as it is the Crown that actually owns the kangaroos (KIAA, Feb.2001). The introduction of financial returns to landholders is unlikely to occur in Western Australia in the short term because of the difficulties with sovereignty rights. South Australia has much higher kangaroo density rates and less area, making it easier for farmers to claim sovereignty rights by shooting kangaroos on their own property themselves (Mawson, per. convers. 12/03/01). As can be seen on the map on Figure 3, page 13, density rates in Western Australia are significantly lower than South Australia. There is also a great debate within the industry on whether or not processor licenses should be restricted. Those who argue for restriction feel that because of the

52

limited supply and the need for a more professional industry, a short-term restriction on licenses is required to enable current industry players to establish a more mature industry. Encouraging increasing numbers of participants to enter an industry with limited supply to create competition may, it is believed, actually inhibit the competitiveness of the industry. They feel that unrestricted licensing destablises commercial interests and leads to reductions in investment resulting in limited industry development (Macarthur 1996). A suggestion by Macarthur that processor licences have economic worth and could be sold on the open market is favoured by some local industry players. This system used to be established in Western Australia but changed when the government deregulated the industry around 1970 to encourage open market competition. There used to be limited entry for processors and whoever had owned a licence for 12 months was able to sell it for around $100,000. Since then there has been a big increase in the number of processors. This means that with a quota of 400,000 and a harvest of only 200,000, the money is spread pretty thinly (Pond, per. convers. 08/03/01). Another event that is concerning the kangaroo industry today is the requests by deer and sheep processors to be able to process kangaroo as well as sheep or deer on their premises. Because this has not been allowed in the past the kangaroo industry has invested millions of dollars in dedicated kangaroo meat premises which cannot be used for any other purpose. The industry is concerned that if these processors are legally permitted to process both species of animals, this will create a potential for them to increase their kangaroo production when the market is good and decrease it when markets decline, thereby creating instability in the kangaroo industry for everyone (KIAA, Aug.2001). A major concern for industry today is the variability and surety of supply. Because the supply of kangaroos is dependent on climate and is not the outcome of planned livestock breeding and management systems, market development is potentially inhibited if processors cannot guarantee supply. There has been reluctance in the past to expand into new game markets because of this uncertainty of supply (Macarthur 1996). However recent improvements in sophistication of population monitoring, has improved quota management systems and provided better security of supply for industry players. Combined with the large increase in population numbers in recent years, these factors have encouraged increased investment and expansion in game supply markets. This is evident by the large numbers of pet food processors and the establishment of a human consumption processing business in Western Australia. ‘Kangaroo meat exports to Europe also expanded in 2001 due to consumers being forced to look for alternatives to beef because of outbreaks of mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease (cnews 2001). However it is fairly likely this total demand in export sales will be considerably less this year as Europeans are beginning to eat beef again as heavy discounts on beef prices emerge (KIAA Feb 2002). This expansion of export markets will encourage the development of long term markets however, and is likely to facilitate a shift in perceptions of harvested species from that of a pest to that of a valuable resource, thereby encouraging increases in domestic consumption to occur. This perception was shown in the following survey to be one of the major hurdles in changing consumption patterns in Western Australia. Research into public perceptions of kangaroo meat consumption in Australia has been undertaken in recent years. In order to determine perceptions of the Kangaroo industry and kangaroo meat consumption the Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation commissioned a consumer survey in 1997, of 500 people

53

from households in mainland capitals. The report found that 25% of people had eaten kangaroo in the past 12 months, with the greatest awareness and use in Adelaide. Of those who had eaten kangaroo, 66% had eaten it in restaurants, 28% at home and 24% in friends’ homes (Purtell, 1997). Most urban Australians were found to have only limited or no exposure to kangaroo meat as a food for human consumption and most people had not thought of serving kangaroo as a ‘family meal’. Lack of informed awareness of Kangaroos/Kangaroo meat appeared to be the main problem. Many were willing to try it or eat it again however. Respondents also had substantial differences of opinion about the place and use of kangaroos. While they agreed that numbers should be reduced for pest purposes, they also believed that kangaroos are unique and should be protected, reflecting a general ambivalence in attitude towards the use of kangaroo meat. A lack of informed awareness about kangaroo meat appeared to be the main problem. For most urban Australians, these perceptions have arisen because kangaroos are not everyday features of their personal landscapes and their exposure to kangaroo meat as a human food is limited. Their knowledge is therefore derived from secondhand sources such as TV news reports or newspaper articles on diseases or conservation issues or programs such as ‘Skippy’. Mixed associations, such as the Kangaroo as a proud National symbol and Kangaroo meat as food suitable only for pets, also produce confused perceptions (Core, 1998). The attitudes of Australians to nature and the environment are shaped by many factors including education. Studies such as one by Freeman and Kellart (1992) showed that even when ‘high-profile’ wildlife species are involved, most people understand very little about their ecological relationships and interdependencies (Aslin and Norton, 1995). This theory was reinforced by the RIRDC report by Purtell, which stated that detailed educational and marketing strategies would help to improve public perceptions and develop the market. The main conclusions and recommendations of this report included; how to raise awareness of consumers’ options for eating meats either at restaurants or at home, developing knowledge and information about how to use kangaroo meat, and development of promotional programs to enhance the climate for Kangaroo meat and industry growth (Core, 1998). Suggested methods for promotion were to develop educational programs that serve to inform those interested, including educational institutions, conservationists or the media, about issues such as the supposed risk to the conservation of Kangaroo species, the need for controlled and humane culling to protect the grazing industry and the government approved hygiene standards met during harvesting. A need to improve the distribution of kangaroo meats to include ready availability in supermarkets, local butchers and restaurants was also recommended (Purtell, 1997). The report also found that 44% of people were not aware of the strict guide-lines set down by the Government. The KIAA believes this situation is significantly hampering the ability of industry to assist with sustainable rangeland management. They believe that informing the public about Government controls over kangaroo management is the role of Government (KIAA, Dec 1999). However a RIRDC report by McKinna suggested that retailers do acknowledge that the health and welfare concerns previously relating to kangaroo meat for human consumption have been greatly alleviated with the development of industry quality standards and a far greater professional approach. The report concluded that ‘a wider acceptance was seen to be more a matter of time, backed by consistent consumer education and promotion, although due to the game meat nature of kangaroo meat, it was seen to be more of a niche product’ (McKinna, 1999, pg 184).

54

12. THE MARKETPLACE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA TODAY. The Wholesale Scene Processors

55

A review of the current wholesale scene in Western Australia resulted from consultations with kangaroo processing industry players and wholesale distributors, and Western Australian representatives of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia. These interviews were undertaken to provide background information and to identify and confirm issues and matters of interest to be included in the following survey. King River Pty Ltd, International, Western Australia’s only processor of kangaroo meat for human consumption was established in Canning Vale in September/October 1998. It is owned by Phil Franolich and Frank Zambonetti. It is one of 5 exporters in Australia and supplies a large percentage of the market for human consumption in Western Australia. It sells around 30,000 kilos of kangaroo meat a week, the rest of the kangaroo, the head and offal, goes for manufacture into tallow and meat meal, therefore none of the kangaroo is wasted. The average yield of boneless meat per head is 10-12 kg. Around 30-40 shooters are employed by King River. Some of these have their own chillers and established farm properties where they shoot and are contracted to King River, while others have farm property and chillers supplied by the processor. Most of the meat processed by King River, is exported to countries overseas including Europe, South Africa, Philippines and Russia. Mahogany Creek and Fresher Only are the biggest local distributors and buy approximately 4-500 kilos every 2-4 weeks from King River for sale mainly in Western Australia. King River buys kangaroos in Western Australia from as far away as Newman, Albany, the Nullarbor, the Goldfields and Gascoyne areas. Most of these are Red Kangaroos. Shooters place the meat in chillers. These are then monitored until the temperature is reduced to the holding temperature of around 1-2oC. Kangaroo meat is better if it is aged so meat can be maintained in chillers without any detrimental effects, for up to 2 weeks. King River have their own refrigerated trucks that regularly pick up and transport the meat back to the processing plant in Perth. Each carcass carries the name of the shooter and the region where the kangaroo was shot. This enables feedback if the carcass is diseased or undersized. Kangaroo meat is rarely exported whole but is processed into specified cuts, which are supplied to the high priced European markets or into bulk meat, for other markets. Very little in the way of value-added products are produced by King River, leaving much of that market available for local distributors (Franolich, per. covers. 30/08/00). The Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia assists the industry by dealing with government and export regulations and other policy decisions. There are countries such as China that do not have a trade agreement with Australia and special agreements need to be set up for industry to be able to export. Korea is another country with a lot of potential, where export agreements have recently been carried out. King River currently exports approximately 9800 Red Kangaroos, 1500 Western Grey kangaroos and 700 Euros per month. The biggest market for these is France. In 2000 King River processed 72,000 kangaroos. Currently around 600 kangaroos are processed each day when kangaroos are available. This would realise an export of approximately 140,000 kangaroos per year. Currently King River produces an annual income of more around $4-5 million and employs around 80 people (Franolich, per. covers. 15/8/02). Factors Limiting Increase.

56

Problems of access to kangaroos during wet seasons sometimes prevent the trucks from entering certain areas. The trucks are fined by State authorities on a per wheel basis if they attempt to travel on the roads, and at 18 wheels per truck, this makes retrieval of kangaroos not only illegal but economically unviable as well. Another supply problem is the distance from the field to the market. This means that shooters have to camp out in isolated areas and it is often difficult to get shooters who are prepared to do this. Under current weather conditions, these appear to be the only problems to providing continuous supplies for the market. The market level for human consumption increase appears to be limited by other access factors however. The present kangaroo meat industry environment contains established pet food industries, some of which have been in business for over 35 years, and one relatively new processor for human consumption. This results in some obvious conflict arising over areas with easy access to kangaroos. The fact that more money is paid to human consumption shooters than pet food shooters is also creating some discord amongst shooters. Shooter conversion to human consumption is not just a matter of economics however. Because King River has been established for less than 5 years, there may be long term employment risks for shooters who choose to change over. These factors, combined with the downturn in the pet food market and limited local demand, have contributed to the low increase in harvest numbers. Potential changes for the future Farmers are beginning to take the opportunity to shoot kangaroos on their own properties to substitute their income. ‘One farmer shooting for us says the money from shooting kangaroos has helped him to exist, as the farm does not make enough to support him at the moment’ (Franolich, per. convers. 17/01/00). Many land/leaseholders’ sons shoot kangaroos for extra money. Franolich considers this activity has potential for increase in the future. However, the current tendency for amalgamation of property may mean a reduction in the number of land/leaseholders. Land/leaseholders of large properties may also be more inclined to employ shooters than do the shooting themselves, because of time constraints and the fact that they are more likely to be able to afford them than the more cash-strapped smaller land/leaseholders. Another interesting tendency that is already occurring is that large land/leaseholders who buy smaller properties, will sometimes let shooters for human consumption harvest kangaroos on recently purchased areas (Franolich, pers. convers. 17/01/00). In this way access to kangaroos may gradually become shared between more industry players. The industry playing field is slowly changing. Shooters and processors are in fact forming strategic alliances with individual farmers or groups of farmers to ensure continuity of supply. And because the value of kangaroo meat for human consumption is higher than that of pet food, the potential for higher payments to other sectors of the industry is greater. Therefore over time, the possibility of gaining a more extensive share of harvest territory is also greater. However the potential for increasing this sector of the industry is also constrained by local perceptions and demand. Perceptions of change within the next 10 years by those in the processing industry appear positive however, and a steady increase in use brought about by innovative marketing ideas is forecast. ‘It will be a long time before the harvest is equal to the quota, but when this happens, demand will provide many innovative means to provide supply. Kangaroo farming appears to be a viable option. I heard from a shooter who owns a large farm out Kalgoorlie way who is considering putting a large kangaroo-proof fence around his property and farming kangaroos. His stock

57

would come from the young kangaroos that are left over when the does are shot’ (Franolich, pers. convers. 30/08/00). This would overcome the difficulty of stock supply that is often raised as one of the obstacles to farming kangaroos. A small number of farming enterprises based on stock supplied from harvesting may provide a use for this valuable resource that is currently not being used. Distributors The three major distributors for kangaroo meat for human consumption I spoke to in Western Australia were Graeme Dove W.A. from Game Supply in O’Connor, Terry Fawell from Mahogany Creek Distributors in Malaga and Sam Satterwaithe from Fresher Only Distributors in Osborne Park. W.A. Game Supply has been selling kangaroo meat for human consumption for 5-6 years and the other two have been selling it for 9-10 years and are distributors for the Western Australian, King River processor. Like the owners of the King River processing plant, these distributors have been involved in the industry for a number of years, some of them helping to shape the current industry. These distributors sell kangaroo meat and a limited range of small goods to other distributors, restaurants, caterers and butcher shops. However it is a very small percentage of their total market, with the highest being around 5-6%. In an attempt to capture the ‘natural’ market, Fresher Only also sells kangaroo meat under their own brand name ‘AusGanics’ which is sold internationally. Potentially, this appears to be a good marketing strategy considering the current problems with diseases in European countries. Distributors expressed the opinion that many local butchers have a negative attitude toward selling kangaroo meat for human consumption as they reflect community perceptions of kangaroo meat as a low value meat that is only fit for pet food. These attitudes were also strongly represented in the following survey of butchers. Perceptions of price between industry players also reflected a difference in attitude with a significant number of butchers stating the price was too high, while distributors considered prices to be reasonable and ‘should not influence price differences in markup between kangaroo and other meats’. Distributors felt that the inclusion of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Woolworths’ and Coles’ stores was beneficial to the expansion of sales because people who wished to use it would now know where to purchase it. However, they considered that the growing trend for individual Woolworths’ and Coles’ stores to order individually, with access to limited quantities, was taking over the role of the local butchers and that this competition for trade had resulted in many local butchers being forced to close. This ability to order limited qualities is important for establishing a market for kangaroo meat as it allows a number of businesses to participate and reduces waste. The distributors therefore considered that although the inclusion of kangaroo meat in the large supermarkets would assist with promoting the use of kangaroo meat, it would also reduce trade for the local butchers. They also felt that the new methods for preparing and packaging kangaroo meat make the meat easy to cook, thereby reducing the traditional problems associated with cooking. The attitude of recent change in the marketplace amongst distributors was positive with perceptions of a slow but definite increase in the Western Australian market in the last 5 years, with the emphasis mostly on restaurants. Many restaurants had tried selling kangaroo meat for human consumption when it was first allowed a few years ago, but since then many restaurants have discontinued selling it. The businesses that have remained in the market are now selling more than they used to. All distributors also agreed that more should be done to promote kangaroo meat here in Western

58

Australia. They felt that the greater acceptance in the Eastern States was due to more extensive promotion and that players in the game meat industry should combine to promote increased use over here. One distributor stated that they found they have been able to sell meat to restaurants successfully, and now the market is established they feel they are able to sell to butchers. Therefore this is the area of growth they are focusing on this year. Others feel that responsibility for promotion lies with the processors who they feel are concentrating more on export than local markets (Dove, and Fawell, per. convers. 24/01/01, Satterwaithe, per. convers. 28/02/01). One outcome of a well established and highly promoted Eastern States industry has been the acceptance of Macro Meats from South Australia as the distributor for Coles’ and Woolworths’ stores in Western Australia. Phil Wilson, Woolworths’ Deputy Marketing Manager, stated that ‘The reason they chose Macro Meats was because of the professional approach and degree of packaging that Ray from Macro meats offered’. A perceived change in consumer attitudes has also contributed to the present introduction of kangaroo meat for human consumption into their stores. Woolworths’ management felt that attitudes have changed and people are now more daring and willing to try something different (Phil Wilson, per. convers. 20/09/00). Macro Meats have also won the South Australian Industry Award for Excellence in Meat Products in 1999 (KIAA, Sept 1999). Very little in the way of promotional material appears to be available here in Western Australia. The local processor had a limited supply of promotional material. Local distributors have also provided some degree of information for purposes of increasing their market base and informing butchers about meat cuts available. Information is available on the packs of meat sold in supermarkets by Macro Meats and King River. However the National Residue Survey (NRS) is currently collecting a levy on all human consumption kangaroos to be diverted to programs that support meat market development initiatives (KIAA, Feb. 2001). Along with this, in March 2000 RIRDC provided funds to the Lenah Consultancy project that aims to improve public perceptions of the environmental wisdom, sustainability and responsible controls of the kangaroo harvest, leading to improved product sales (Oogjes, 2000, pg1). These recent industry strategies point to a current emphasis on educational awareness and promotion that presents possibilities for improved perceptions of commercial kangaroo use and increased values of meat for human consumption. The Retail Scene. In order to review the current usage of kangaroo meat for human consumption in the marketplace in Western Australia and to determine how the attitudes of retailers may be affecting this situation, I undertook a survey of local butchers and restaurants in the Perth Metropolitan region. The objectives of the survey were to; • to review current demand and perceptions of the use of kangaroo meat for human

consumption in the wholesale and retail sectors of the industry. • to assess whether this demand has changed and in what ways it has changed since

the strengthening of the Kangaroo Industries Association of Australia and the introduction of legislative approval of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Australia in 1995.

• to review the degree to which educational and marketing strategies recommended in the Purtell/RIRDC report have been implemented in Western Australia

• to identify what the remaining barriers to increased kangaroo meat consumption are in Perth.

Project Scope and Sample Details.

59

The scope of the studies was to survey a sample of Perth metropolitan local butchers and restaurants covering current kangaroo meat retailers in general as well as to gain information on retailers who are not presently selling kangaroo meat. The research methodology is presented followed by an analysis of the research findings. A copy of the questionnaires is attached to this report as Appendix 2 and 3. Interviews for both questionnaires were carried out by telephone as this was the most cost-effective method for this small study. Methodology Butcher Survey: A draft questionnaire was pilot tested on two local butchers and subsequent modifications to the questionnaire were undertaken. Twenty butcher shops in the Perth and Rockingham Metropolitan area were contacted by telephone. These butchers accounted for approximately 10% of businesses in the region. This percentage was chosen due to budget and time constraints and because the data would provide the degree of precision required. In order to get a good cross-section of the community and to determine whether usage is affected by socio-economic levels, a stratified sample was undertaken using high, medium and low socio-economic areas of Perth. This information was provided by a private market research consultant. The Yellow Pages Telephone Directory was then used to achieve a random selection of respondents in these areas. If a particular area had more than one butcher, the second butcher on the list was chosen. Restaurant Survey: Eight ethnic restaurants that included those with Asian, Indian, Italian, Mexican and Mediterranean menus were contacted and asked whether they use kangaroo meat or whether they know of any other restaurant selling the same cuisine that uses kangaroo meat. A negative response was received by all respondents and therefore for economic and efficiency reasons, these restaurants were eliminated from the selection frame. A selection frame of restaurants, which excluded those with ethnic cuisine, was drafted using the Yellow Pages Telephone Directory. As surveying 10% of all the remaining restaurants was beyond the scope of this thesis, twenty restaurants were contacted to equal the number of butchers contacted. To achieve a random selection each restaurant was numbered and a random selection chart was then used to choose the restaurants contacted. Survey Results The first three questions were screening questions to determine business use and attitude toward use. Question 1: Whether Businesses sell Kangaroo meat or not. Those contacted for the survey were first asked whether or not their business sold Kangaroo Meat for human consumption. Of the 20 butchers contacted 7 or 35% sold kangaroo meat. The high-income areas had 2 businesses selling kangaroo meat, the middle income areas had 3 businesses selling meat (one also sold wholesale), and the low-income areas had only one. The other business that sold kangaroo meat was placed in a ‘mixed’ category as, this owner was in the Central Business District which had mixed clientele. Number of Butchers Selling Kangaroo Meat and the Number Considered Selling

60

02468

101214

Not

sel

ling

Sellin

g

Not

con

side

red

C

onsi

dere

d

Butchers Not Selling

Restaurants That Sell or have Considered Selling Kangaroo Meat.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Not

sel

ling

Sellin

g

Not

con

side

red

Con

side

red

Restaurants Not Selling

The same number of restaurants (7), had kangaroo meat on the menu as butchers; however, three other restaurants did not have it on at the time of the survey because they were having a change of menu, but did include it at other times. These businesses were therefore included in the number of restaurants who do sell kangaroo meat. It was difficult to compare the use of kangaroo meat between the two types of businesses as use by butchers may mean that it is intermittently ordered in on the odd occasion when someone asks for it or when an Aboriginal cultural day occurs. On the other hand, some restaurants tend to have it on the menu at regular intervals but omit it when a change in the menu is required. Or they may use it only as an entree. This therefore makes it difficult to determine regular ‘use’ of kangaroo meat to be able to make a comparison. Q1, (a). Have you ever considered selling it? This question was asked of respondents who did not sell kangaroo meat. The results showed 30% of the total number of butchers and restaurants surveyed said they had never considered selling kangaroo meat but there were more butchers (35%) than restaurants (20%) that had tried it and found there was not enough demand to make it worthwhile. This means that 13 out of 20 butchers had considered using it or were using it and 14 restaurants had considered using it or were using it.

61

Question 1 (b). What are the reasons you don’t sell kangaroo meat? Of the 13 butchers who do not currently sell kangaroo meat, 6, or nearly one third of total respondents, suggested the high price was the main reason for their lack of customer demand. These comments only came from butchers who are not selling the meat. Other reasons for not selling it were, just a personal preference that stemmed from a perception of the meat as only fit for pet food or ‘bush tucker’, or they did not like the taste of the meat themselves. One respondent considered the quality of the local meat was not adequate because the best quality meat was exported, and that the meat was not available when required or was not available in the right quantity required. One newly acquired business owner was in the process of purchasing extra freezers specifically for the sale of game meat. This respondent had recently emigrated from England where he had experienced a higher use of kangaroo meat than in Western Australia. The reasons given by restaurants for not having kangaroo meat on the menu were that they had never thought of it or that their clientele were not people who ate game meat. Those that had tried it and decided against using it found that it sold too slowly and there was not enough demand to make it worthwhile. This ties in with comments made in Q.11 and 15(a) about the type of venue or the area that the restaurant is in, making a difference to whether kangaroo meat is requested or not. It was suggested that areas serving ‘truckies’ or outlying areas with smaller populations of middle or lower socio-economic income, were areas of little or no demand. Question 2. Butcher Survey: Do you supply businesses with Kangaroo meat? Only 3, or 15% of butchers surveyed stated they supplied other businesses with kangaroo meat. One of these is a business in the Central Business District, and the other was an acknowledged wholesaler. These distinctions potentially make these butcher shops different from the rest. The reasons for this may include the type of customer, making them more open to try different food, and/or because the owner may be more open to selling a wider variety of products. The other butcher was in a middle income area but stated he had started selling due to demand from the restaurants. This butcher also stated he had the meat on display only because the restaurants purchased it, yet he also sold meat to private consumers 3 to 4 times a week, which was a relatively high turnover compared to most other businesses. Question 3. Approximately how many businesses do you supply? The number of businesses supplied by butchers ranged from 1 or 2 up to 10, demonstrating the probability that most restaurants buy from game meat distributors, not butchers. Question 4. Monthly sales to private customers for their own consumption. This ranged from once every 6 months to around 10 a week with the highest demands in the new, high income, northern suburbs. This respondent was relatively young and had opened his shop only a year ago. He appeared to promote game meat more than other respondents, with the use of a separate cabinet and promotional tastings. Question 5. How many kilos do private customers purchase at a time?

62

The amount of meat purchased at a time was generally small amounts ranging from half a kilo up to 2 kilos. One customer in a lower socio-economic area was selling larger amounts to Aborigines when special functions were being held. Question 6. Do you regularly have it on display? The two businesses that had the highest turnover regularly have kangaroo meat on display. Another business with a high turnover has kangaroo meat advertised on the outside walls of his shop. This shows a definite relationship between in-store promotion and sales. Question 7. Meat is sold Chilled, Frozen or Fresh No businesses in the survey sold kangaroo meat for human consumption fresh. All businesses sold it frozen although one occasionally sold it chilled. This result is the opposite of the RIRDC report (Pg 73), which reported that all kangaroo meat purchased in Perth was fresh. Perhaps all those respondents who purchased in Perth in the RIRDC report were purchasing from supermarkets where they can get it fresh. Question 8. How long have you been selling it? Six out of seven of the butchers selling kangaroo meat for human consumption have been selling it for more than five years. However, 2 of the total butchers surveyed were relatively new entrants to the market. One of these has been selling meat for a year while the other one is currently in the process of organizing equipment for the sale of game meat.

0

2

4

6

Length of Time Selling ButchersRestaurants

0-1yr 1-2yrs 2-5yrs >5yrs

Question 2. Restaurant Survey: Approximately how long have you had kangaroo meat as a menu dish? This result showed a difference from the butcher survey. There appeared to be a definite increase in recent demand for kangaroo meat. Half of the restaurants serving kangaroo meat had included it on their menu within the last 2 years. This result when combined with the 10% increase in butcher use could tentatively be interpreted as a current increase in use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. It may also eventuate from an increase in competition that forces small businesses to diversify. Question 3. Is it a regular/irregular menu item? Four out of the ten restaurants selling kangaroo meat have it on the menu as a regular item. However two of these have had it on the menu for less than one year. The remaining restaurants use it intermittently. This result would tend to reflect the novelty value of kangaroo meat and suggest that it is still not an everyday item used by regular customers. The small portions sold to customers by butcher's (Q.5) also suggests it is not an everyday commodity. However, the Restaurant Survey Q.13

63

suggests there may be a significant percentage of locals who do eat it regularly when dining out. Question 4. How many menu dishes using kangaroo meat do they have at any one time? This result also reflects the idea of kangaroo meat as a novelty dish as all restaurants except one have only one dish on the menu at any one time. This belief is also reinforced by the result in Q.12 of the butcher survey that showed a significant number of customers ask for assistance with cooking, (and the fact that in 4 of the 10 restaurants surveyed it was suggested that customers only ever ordered what was on the menu). These results suggest that the public have limited exposure and are generally unaware of what methods can be used to cook kangaroo meat which links in with the RIRDC report where 64% of respondents indicated they really did not know how to cook Kangaroo meat (pg 91). Because of this inexperience with eating kangaroo meat, they may not be sure of which methods they prefer (Q.8). Question 5. The approximate percentage of weekly red meat that kangaroo meat is? Half of the restaurants surveyed stated that kangaroo meat was only 1-2% of their total weekly red meat use with another 3 stating it was only 5-10%. Only one restaurant in Subiaco, which had a chef from France, stated that the use of kangaroo meat was more than 25% of the total red meat use. This promotion by someone from a game-eating culture in an affluent area is indicative of the new gourmet positioning of kangaroo meat in some regions of the marketplace. Question 6. How do you cook or present your dishes? There was an interesting variety of cooking methods shown in this question which included, stewed, pan fried, grilled, oven baked, char-grilled, ragout or smoked. When compared with Question 8. What method of cooking do your customers prefer? similar methods were suggested. One respondent also suggested that customers enjoyed kangaroo meat presented combined with other game meats such as crocodile or emu. Some chefs found this question difficult however, and felt they did not know what method customers preferred. Those attending the tables rather than the chefs may have answered this question more efficiently. The limited choice of kangaroo meat dishes that restaurants offer customers may also have contributed to the difficulties of this response. Question 7. How many times a week is kangaroo meat chosen? Restaurants currently selling kangaroo meat appear to have a fairly high demand for kangaroo meat dishes with 90% of the restaurants selling it at least once a day and half of the restaurants selling it more than twice a day. This would suggest there is a relatively constant demand for kangaroo meat at restaurants that have it on the menu. Question 9. What is customer level of satisfaction? This result reinforces the information in Q.7 as all restaurants felt their customers were either fairly satisfied or very satisfied. However this was another question some chefs were not sure about and measured their response by the fact that the plates came back to the kitchen empty.

64

Question 10 Have you ever had problems with cooking or presentation? Only 2 chefs stated they had ever had problems with cooking it and both said that the meat was too tough. However this suggests that at least 10% of chefs may not be sure of how to cook kangaroo meat and points to the fact that increased education and assistance about use is necessary if kangaroo meat is to obtain greater acceptance and use. Question 9. Butcher Survey What made you decide to start selling it? Two butchers have continued to sell kangaroo meat as an established product when they bought their business. Demand from restaurants motivated two respondents to begin selling it and another only sells it when people ask for it to be ordered in for them. Another respondent was persuaded by a local distributor to ‘give it a go’, and another sells only when it is ordered. The most positive attitude came from a young butcher in a new business that caters to a recently developed, high income residential area, where kangaroo meat is being promoted alongside emu and crocodile as gourmet game meats. Very few of the decisions by butchers to sell kangaroo meat appear to originate from kangaroo industry sources or the butchers themselves. The continuance of business practices and consumer demand appears to be the main instigators. Question 10. Is your supplier from WA or the eastern states? Only 2 out of the 7 businesses who sold kangaroo meat obtained their supplies from Eastern States distributors. When asked what their reasons were they did not buy from a local distributor, they stated they had an established distributor who they were happy with or they did not know there was a processing business for human consumption in Western Australia. Question 11. Restaurant Survey Have you had problems with supply? Only one restaurant had problems with supply and the reason for this was because the restaurant was in the hills and some distance away from regular transport routes. Therefore it was necessary for the restaurant to pre-order supplies. When combined with the information in Q10 above, this would appear to imply that the Western Australian harvesting and wholesale industry is having little difficulty supplying local markets. Question 12,13,14 Are locals or tourists your biggest clientele? Do you have locals who regularly ask for kangaroo dishes? and What age of person do you think is more likely to order kangaroo meat? These three questions were all designed to determine the type of person who is more likely to eat kangaroo meat. The results showed that locals were considered to be the largest portion of clientele for kangaroo meat at restaurants although some restaurants also have an equal portion of tourist and locals as customers.

65

Type of Person Who Orders Kangaroo Meat

Mostly locals

Mostly tourists

Both locals and tourists

equally

Estimated Age of People Ordering Kangaroo Meat

30-60 yrs

>60 yrs

Under 30 yrs

AnyAge

Percentage of Restaurants w ith Locals Who Regularly Ask for

Kangaroo Meat

Restaurants w ith locals w ho

regularly ask

Restaurants that don't know

Restaurants w ith locals that don't

regularly ask

It was also interesting to note that in 5 out of 10 restaurants selling kangaroo meat, there are locals who regularly ask for kangaroo dishes and this suggests that when dining out, a significant number of locals regularly enjoy kangaroo meat. The age of customers who are more likely to order kangaroo meat showed that by far the greatest number were supposedly in the 30-60 age bracket. However this may be because this age bracket may be more likely to eat out at restaurants and as one young chef suggested, perhaps kangaroo meat is a ‘little too much chewing’ for older people. It may also be that the people in the older age bracket, having lived through the era when kangaroo meat was established as pet food or ‘bushtucker’, still retain these attitudes. However, these three questions produced a response bias as some chefs found this answer difficult because they did not see who did the ordering. This question would have been better if it had been asked of the waiters and waitresses. This data would also have been improved by including a question to determine whether there was a seasonal change in demand and how that affected consumer demand. Question 11 and 15. Both Surveys Has the popularity of kangaroo meat changed in last 5 years? and a) Why do you say that? Of the butchers surveyed, only those presently selling kangaroo meat were asked this question. Only 3 out o7 (43%),considered there had been a change in the popularity or use of kangaroo meat during the last 5 years. However the butcher who was also selling wholesale considered that the opening of the local processor has made a huge difference to sales in Western Australia. Although he did not reveal the extent of this increase he did state that he had definitely sold more in the last 18 months. He considered the reason for this was the parochial attitude of Western Australians. He explained this by saying there is a lot of animosity and competition between the Eastern and Western States and this made Western Australians want to support industries in their own state. One butcher considered that more people were eating it

66

now as he felt people today were more inclined to be adventurous and try something different. One respondent felt that younger people were more inclined to try it but that older residents of European descent were reluctant to consider it. All restaurant respondents were asked this question. This question confirmed a real difference between the attitude of butchers and restaurant respondents with 70% of restaurant respondents suggesting there had been an increase in kangaroo meat use in the last 5 years. There were also a variety of reasons given to substantiate these opinions. Those who believed use had increased considered that it was available in more restaurants now, and even some supermarkets, and it was therefore more accessible for people. They also felt that people were more adventurous and more health conscious and therefore considered kangaroo meat as an interesting alternative at restaurants. Those who did not think use had increased felt that the media images of kangaroos as ‘cuddly and fluffy’ and use of our national symbol were reasons people did not eat kangaroo. One respondent felt that it had been more popular when it was first introduced to Western Australian restaurants and that it was now just an everyday item on the menu. One respondent suggested that eating kangaroo meat took too much chewing and felt that customers wanted something that was quicker and easier to eat. However the overall results seemed to portray the differences in attitude between butchers and those working in restaurants and perhaps point to some of the reasons why restaurant use exceeds household use. Question 12. Butcher Survey How often do your customers ask you for information about cooking? Most respondents were frequently asked for information on how to prepare and cook kangaroo meat with only 2 out of 7 stating they were rarely asked. This result reinforces the theory of many butchers of the need for assistance with cooking and recipes. Question 13. How readily do you feel able to help them? Only one respondent felt he was not easily able to assist customers with information on how to prepare and cook kangaroo meat. One respondent stated that he only sells loin steak and so informs them to cook it the same way as their beef steak. Question 14. Is the price you sell the meat for dearer, cheaper or about the same as other meat? Most butchers selling kangaroo meat considered their price was the same or lower than other red meats. Forty three percent of respondents assessed their prices as about the same as other meat. This was an interesting comparison with the RIRDC survey findings. When the 27% of Perth respondents who did not know the price were removed, the percentage of consumers who considered prices were the same or cheaper was 63% compared to the butchers perceptions of 86%. However, of the 13 butchers not selling kangaroo meat, 6, (or 30% of total), believed that the high price was a reason people did not buy kangaroo meat. The big variety in prices appears to create confusing perceptions for both retailers and consumers alike and demonstrates the current problems of perceptions of value and positioning in the marketplace.

67

RIRDC Public Price Perceptions in Perth

12345

4%

33%

30%

30%

3%

Butcher Price Perceptions

2345

14%14%

43%29%

1. Much Dearer, 2. Slightly Dearer, 3. About the Same, 4. Slightly Cheaper, 5. Much Cheaper, 6. Don’t know Question 15. The approximate range in prices. Prices ranged from $8/kg to $30/kg. However the difference in prices was quite pronounced between higher and lower socio-economic areas. Two businesses also stated that they only sold the better cuts such as mid loin steak. There was a difference of $6.50 in the price they sold this for, and this was probably because the businesses were in different socio-economic areas. One was in a high income and the other was in a middle income area. Question 16. Does price make any difference to whether people buy it or not. Opinions were evenly split with three respondents believing the price did make a difference to whether people bought kangaroo meat while three believed it did not. The other respondent believed that it did make a difference sometimes. This is an interesting result when combined with the 5 butchers in the following question who considered the price was a reason people did not buy kangaroo meat and suggests that one quarter of the butchers surveyed believe the current price of kangaroo meat limits the demand in Western Australia. All butcher respondents were asked the remaining questions. Question 17. What are the reasons people don’t buy kangaroo meat? Reasons Why People Don't Buy Kangaroo Meat Reasons No. of Respondents 1. Think of it as pet meat 11 2. Because of the 'Furry Cuddly' syndrome 7 3. Other reasons i.e. People unwilling to try something new, the price was too high, they were worried about hygiene conditions of harvest and processing, consider it only as a novelty meat or road kill, meat looked too dark 12 4. Don't know how to cook it 5 5. Don't think about buying it 3 6. National symbol/should be preserved 2 7. Don't like flavour 1 8. Believe kangaroos have diseases 1 9. Not promoted in store 1

As is shown in the table 55% of respondents believe that the main reason people do not buy kangaroo meat is because of the cultural attitude that it is only fit for pet food.

68

This attitude has been engendered through the traditional use of kangaroo meat as dog food on the farm, when economic times are difficult, or in the bush when other meat was not available. This perception was not verified by the RIRDC report however, which reported that 87% of Perth respondents disagreed with the statement that kangaroos should only be used for pet food, not human consumption (Pg 106). The age of butchers may have some bearing on these results as 60% of butcher respondents were aged over 40 years and are therefore more likely to retain traditional attitudes. Other reasons respondents considered people do not buy it were, because of the ‘furry, cuddly’ syndrome or because they never think of buying it. It was interesting to note that a number of butchers (5 mentions) considered people do not buy kangaroo meat because they do not know how to cook it. This compares similarly with the results of the RIRDC report where most of those who had eaten Kangaroo felt they didn’t know how to cook it, having eaten it only in restaurants (pg vi). Other reasons included the price, the idea it is a novelty meat only, the fear of poor hygiene standards during harvesting or processing or people were put off from eating the meat because of road kills. One butcher felt that people in Western Australia were typically reluctant to try something new and different while another thought the dark look of the meat put people off buying it. Question 18 and 16. Both Surveys Reactions to statements about ideas suggested to try and improve use. This question asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statements and then scaled their rate of agreement. Respondent's opinions are shown in the following graph. Promotional Ideas

1. Availability of value-added forms i.e. Sausages, burgers, pates, kebabs 2. Promoting health aspects i.e. 1-2% fat and lowered blood cholesterol 3. Educating people about preparing and cooking meat 4. Getting supermarkets to sell it 5. Telling people of environmental benefits and disease free status 6. Promoting as a gourmet meat, not one only used for pet food

Promotional Ideas/Butchers and Restaurants Agree Disagree

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Butchers

Restaurants

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Although the results between butcher and restaurant respondent attitudes were similar, overall butchers tended to disagree with promotional ideas more than restaurant respondents. This attitude can be seen in the result of questions 5 and 6 that show that no restaurant respondents disagreed with these promotional ideas.

69

One factor influencing this trend may be because there was 62% of restaurant respondents aged less than 40 years and only 40% of butcher respondents aged under 40. Respondents in the younger age groups may be more willing to try something new than older respondents. Restaurants also rely on the continual input of new and innovative ideas for menu dishes. The suggestion that restaurants may attract workers who are likely to be more creative and willing to try new ideas may also have influenced this outcome. The above graph does not include the 18 neutral responses. The first suggestion had comparable results. Most respondents, 80% (butchers) and 75% (restaurants), agreed that the availability of more value added forms such as sausages, kebabs, burgers etc would encourage more use. Their affirmation of this suggestion was understandable considering small business owners are very likely to appreciate the worth of value-adding. Many respondents, 80% and 90% respectively, also agreed with the promotion of health aspects of kangaroo meat, such as the low fat content and the ability to lower cholesterol. This support links to the RIRDC report which indicated that just under half of all respondents said that knowing that kangaroo meat had the National Heart Foundation’s red tick of approval would influence them to use it (pg 17). However it was interesting to note that only 75% of butchers agreed that education of people on preparation and cooking methods was an incentive to encourage use while 85% of restaurants thought this would help. This result appears to reinforce the attitude of many butchers that people think of kangaroo as a low value meat that is not worth eating. Therefore educating people about its use would not change their mind about using it. Only 55% of butchers surveyed considered getting supermarkets to sell kangaroo meat would help promote it. However 70% of restaurant respondents agreed with this idea. When questioned, many butchers were reluctant to agree with this idea because of the competition that exists between supermarkets and butchers and the significant impacts that supermarkets are currently having on the economic viability of local butchers in Perth. Although most agreed that supermarket sales would encourage more use, they were understandably reluctant to wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that supermarkets be encouraged to sell meat of any kind. However restaurant respondents also had very mixed feeling on this idea with only 60% agreement. This may also be explained by the fact that selling kangaroo meat in supermarkets would encourage people to purchase it for home consumption rather than eating out at restaurants. The suggestion of making people aware of the environmental benefits and the kangaroo health aspects such as the virtual disease free rate in kangaroos and the freedom from antibiotics, at 65%, did not score as highly for butchers as the 95% for restaurants. Some respondents questioned these statements demonstrating the possibility that the environmental benefits may not be fully understood by everyone. Overall, there was a general agreement with all of the statements suggested to encourage the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Western Australia. Respondents considered that promoting the meat as a gourmet meat and promoting the health benefits were marginally better ways of encouraging use than environmental and disease issues, educating people about cooking methods and the availability of value-added forms. The idea of getting supermarkets to sell it scored significantly lower than the others for reasons stated above. It is interesting to note that restaurants favoured promotion of kangaroo meat appealing to consumers’ perceptions of a quality, disease-free meat with environmental benefits, while

70

butchers favoured the promotion of consumer perceptions of the health benefits of eating kangaroo meat and the increased availability of value-added forms of the meat. Question 19 and 17. Aware of any form of promotion in the last 2 years. Only 5, (25%), of butcher respondents could remember any promotion occurring in Western Australia in the last 2 years. Two of these could not remember what business or organization promoted. One respondent affirmed the promotion of kangaroo meat by the introduction of produce in supermarkets while another remembered receiving information from an Eastern States business. The other respondent stated he had heard about overseas activists on TV recently concerning supposed risks to kangaroo populations through commercial use of kangaroos. Even less (20%), of restaurant respondents recollected promotion in WA. Two of these were at the Perth Royal show, and the Wannaroo show and another remembered a promotion by the National Restaurant chain ACOR that promoted kangaroo meat within the chain. The other respondent recollected reading a newspaper article about kangaroo consumption. These results could suggest that little has been done in Western Australia during the past 2 years to promote the overall use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. However, the data relied on memory recall which is often not very effective. This question would have been improved by including promotional prompts such as local newspapers or trade fairs to improve memory recall. Question 20 and 18. Information or advertising received for shop display in the past year. Only two respondents had received information on kangaroo meat and this had been received this from the local supplier in the form of sales information on produce available. Question 21. Butcher Survey Information on standardised range of meat cuts available. Three respondents had received information of meat cuts. Two of these were received from a local supplier. Question 22 and 19. Both Surveys What more could be done to increase demand in WA? Many suggestions reaffirmed the statements in question 16 and 18 while others added to the statements. Marinated meat was suggested as an effective way of encouraging people to try kangaroo. Value adding as gourmet products at the right price was recommended because of a personal preference for kangaroo in the form of sausages rather than steak. One business had regular daily sales of kangaroo pies. In this way he was able to introduce people to eating it without the worry of knowing how to cook it. One restaurant respondent suggested that it should be promoted as an alternative to beef and lamb. He suggested this should be done in butchers, as this is where he would go to get meat that he would eat and not supermarkets as this is where he considered he would buy his pet food. Another suggested that butchers should be encouraged to sell it more so that it was more accessible for the public. One respondent considered that the theory that 80% of sales are what is seen in the shop window suggested a need to aim at grass roots level. Promotion in the form of advertising and education aimed at butcher shops was therefore indicated. The

71

availability of point of sale material including recipes was suggested so people can learn to use it properly. It was also recommended that more education with the use of demonstrations should be promoted in teaching institutions. Others felt that TV advertisements were required, as they were the only effective method of advertising. Cooking shows on TV in particular were mentioned along with newspaper and magazine advertising to capture mainstream attention and acceptance. One respondent suggested more publicity involving media stars such as Ernie Dingo would help promote sales. The inclusion of the names of businesses that sell kangaroo meat in media advertisements was also suggested. Another idea was a promotion similar to the one Quinns Beef Butchers had just completed with advertising in a number of media forms. Respondents also dismissed the idea of promotion by the Meat Industry as they felt promotion of kangaroo meat would disadvantage the Meat Industry’s traditional red meat products. Some butcher respondents expressed the opinion that the high price affected demand and that at $25-30 a kilo it was too expensive. It was felt that a drop in price would encourage more people to try it. One respondent considered kangaroo meat was only fit for dog food and did not want anything to do with selling it. All his answers were strongly negative, reflecting his negative attitude, which therefore produced a slight bias to the butcher survey data. However, there appeared to be a general attitude that the media should be used to assist the promotion of kangaroo meat for human consumption more and that education of the issues surrounding its use should be increased. There was no suggestion as to who would pay for this promotion however. There was also considered to be a need for more local outlets displaying the meat so the meat is seen more often and is readily accessible to customers at all times. Summary of Findings as they relate to the four objectives of the survey. 1. Review current demand and perceptions of the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. Overall demand for home use of kangaroo meat in Perth is relatively low with the greatest portion of butchers surveyed refraining from selling it. Many butchers appeared to have a negative attitude toward its use and cited lack of customer demand as their reason for not selling it. Perceptions by local butchers of the purchase of kangaroo meat for home use differ to some degree from those expressed by the public in the RIRDC report. A significant portion of butchers believed the public perceives kangaroo meat as only fit for pet food and that the meat was overpriced. Comparisons on the RIRDC report show that the main reasons given for not eating kangaroo meat are that people never think about it or that it is not readily available for purchase. These results point to a difference in overall perception between butchers and the public and may constitute part of the reason why home use has not increased significantly in the last 5 years. Overall restaurant respondent perceptions were more positive with a slightly higher number of restaurants than butchers selling it and many respondents considering restaurant use has increased in the last 5 years. This perception was reinforced by the RIRDC report which found that restaurant use consisted of 66% of respondents while only 24% had eaten kangaroo meat at other locations (pgs 60 and 61).

72

2. Assess whether this demand has changed and in what ways it has changed Based on respondents’ comments, there appears to be a general overall increase in demand for kangaroo meat served at restaurants over the last 5 years, although this still appears to be confined to specific venues or areas where game meat is more accepted. It is no longer a novelty item for many people and is now an established game meat item on the menu. There appears to be less change in the home consumption market, however instore promotion did appear to have some impact on sales. Very recent changes such as the inclusion of kangaroo meat in Woolworths’ and Coles’ supermarket stores and the slight movement in retail sales within the last year identified in the survey results, may possibly indicate an upward trend for the future. 3. Review the degree to which educational and marketing strategies have been implemented in Western Australia Respondents were unable to recall little in the way of promotion of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Western Australia in the last 2 years, although a few prompts in the questionnaire may have assisted this. A few distributors appear to have circulated some information to local retailers for sales purposes and promotions have occurred at large regional shows. However few respondents were able to recall larger players in the industry putting much time or resources into this activity. Recent inquiries from Western Australian Government Agencies also found that very limited material is available to promote the education and awareness of kangaroo management and the industry in schools and the media. However, the recent collection of fees from those in the industry for local and overseas promotion may provide an opportunity to change the current situation. 4. Identify remaining barriers to increased kangaroo meat consumption in Perth. Negative public and retail perceptions and lack of promotion, still limit the movement of kangaroo meat for home use and constrain the increase of use in restaurants. This results in a lack of exposure for many Western Australians and the continued lack of awareness for using kangaroo meat. Therefore the same barriers reported in the RIRDC report remain, such as; • the limited exposure to Kangaroo meat as a food for human consumption for most

urban Australians, • the lack of informed awareness of Kangaroo meat, and • the perceptions gained from lack of personal contact with kangaroos, and the

consequent reliance on second hand inputs such as TV programs (pg XIV). Survey Summary The use of kangaroo meat was distributed fairly evenly throughout the Perth Metropolitan region and the opportunity for increased use would appear to be as much a factor of individual attitude and application as differences in venue and socio-economic area. The recent inclusion of meat in Coles’ and Woolworths’ supermarket stores suggests a significant shift in mainstream attitudes toward our use of kangaroo meat in Western Australian and provides an opportunity for potential further change. The comments that arose from the survey indicated that consumers perceive food in a different way in different places and that if a product is not easily recognizable on display, consumers often do not see it, and are therefore unlikely to think of purchasing it. Consumers also appear more likely to try something different at a

73

restaurant than at home. At a restaurant kangaroo meat can be thought of as a treat because that is where consumers go to get something different from their everyday food. It is also served to consumers disguised as part of a meal, and is therefore more removed from the animal than the raw meat that is bought at the butchers. The perception of eating a ‘furry, cuddly’ animal is consequently reduced. Many people still buy their regular supply of meat from a butcher but as we are often in a hurry, the purchase of something different that is not on display, is very unlikely to be considered. Many purchasers are also buying meat for their families as well as themselves, which also may discourage them from trying something different. Our perception of where we buy products from differs also. As one respondent suggested, ‘a supermarket is where I would go to get kangaroo meat for pet food, whereas I would go to a butcher for meat that I would eat myself. The survey showed that the price of kangaroo meat also appears to raise a variety of conflicting views. The promotion of meat by some butchers as a gourmet specialty meat created significant price differences which tended to create pricing uncertainties for the retail sector and potentially confusing public perceptions of what the price should be. Price, is an important signal of public perception and in the case of kangaroo, tends to confuse the public perception of kangaroo as a gourmet meat, an everyday commodity or a pet food. Survey results also showed that those butchers selling kangaroo meat at low prices, reflected the low value many Western Australians have of kangaroo meat. The promotion of kangaroo meat as a specialty game meat in affluent suburbs and the continued traditional use of kangaroo meat as a pet food seems to raise confusing paradoxes for public perceptions. The survey also revealed a general opinion that media sources have a major influence on public perceptions and that more use should be made of this medium to promote the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. The necessity for improved education and awareness of issues surrounding the use of kangaroos was also seen as important. An increase in the number of outlets was seen as a necessary requirement for improving accessibility for the general public. The commercial reality is that an increasing number of restaurants have kangaroo meat on their menus but its positioning as a game meat means it is not an everyday item for most Western Australians. Home consumption appears to have moved very little in the last 5 years. Export game meat in Western Australia is now a commercial reality with the opening of a processor for human consumption 4 years ago and if good seasonal conditions continue will see a significant expansion in the export market in future years. The potential supply for the increased domestic consumption of kangaroo game meat still has some major obstacles to overcome however, not the least of which is the negative local public image of kangaroo as a pet food meat. The survey was aimed at building on data contained in the RIRDC survey completed by Purtell and Associates in 1996. Some results differed from those of the RIRDC survey. However the RIRDC survey targeted consumers and was therefore different from the attitude of retailers who were targeted in this survey. This survey may also have different results because it was limited to consumers who buy their meat from butchers. These customers may vary from those who would normally buy meat from supermarkets. The varying ages of respondents in the two groups has also had some impact on the results with many butchers in the older age groups offering a more traditional attitude toward kangaroo meat consumption and were less willing to promote it. Overall however, the data gathered from this survey was similar to much of the data revealed in the RIRDC survey and was comparable to the results that were

74

predicted. Further research into the attitudes of those in the retail trade would need to include more of the people working in the different areas of the retail trade such as waiters and waitresses and those working in supermarkets; especially now that Coles’ and Woolworths’ stores have undertaken to sell kangaroo meat for human consumption. This would provide a more comprehensive view of retailer attitudes toward kangaroo meat use. Questions aimed at finding out whether respondents had knowledge of certain promotions that had taken place would also provide more data on the extent that retailers are informed about promotions and the degree to which the promotions might be influencing their activities. This information would be useful for future marketing strategies. This survey was based on the assumption that increased use of kangaroo meat for human consumption in Western Australia is inhibited by local attitudes and attempted to discover the attitudes and positioning of retailers in the marketplace in order to determine how these players may be contributing to the current circumstances. The survey consisted of two short pilot studies that were limited due to time and budget constraints and are therefore too small to be generalized to attitudes across the butcher or restaurant population in Perth. More tests could have been applied to the results to analyse the difference between the two groups. However, the small number of respondents in each group was not sufficient to be representative within the group. It does however, provide a productive starting point for others to build further information on.

75

13. CONCLUSION It must be noted here that these surveys were carried out before the impacts of the diseases that have affected European countries came into effect in Australia. ‘Beef is now double the price of kangaroo meat’ (Willagee butcher, pers. convers. June 2001). Overseas demand has increased export prices by up to 20% in 2001 and it is very unlikely these prices will go down to their original level. However international prices for beef are also unlikely to be reduced either as many Europeans now consider that lot-fed beef is dangerous and prefer beef raised on open pastures. This reduces the number of cattle that can be raised. Currently the export demand for kangaroos for human consumption cannot be met by Australian processors and this is increasing the conflict between pet food and human consumption kangaroo territory (Franolich, pers. convers. 7/06/01). However the increase in demand of kangaroo meat overseas may do little to increase the value of kangaroo meat as a significant proportion of export sales are currently being increased into the poorer countries such as Russia, Bosnia and the Czech Republic (Appendix 1) which require high volume produce at lower prices. The market is gradually increasing however, and this includes the export market. The added value of meat for human consumption over pet food is providing a significant opportunity for the kangaroo industry to further increase the value of kangaroo exports for Australia. However, an Australian perception of kangaroo meat as low-priced meat in relation to beef and sheep remains a major hurdle for increased use within Australia. Until both economy and premium cuts of kangaroo are offered for sale alongside other red meats, and affordable value added kangaroo meat products compete with similar meat products, the potential for kangaroo meat use will not be met within Australia or overseas. ‘Commercial operators believe that Australia has to focus on improving the level of domestic consumption of kangaroo game meat before significant export game meat activity will occur’ (Macarthur 1996, Pg 18). Why is it important to change local perceptions about human consumption of kangaroos? The expansion of lower value, high volume export markets is an important element of the process to increase the use of kangaroo meat for human consumption. However, if we are to increase the value of kangaroo meat we also need to change Australian perceptions of kangaroos as pests or ‘cuddly, furry’ animals so they are better able to appreciate the value of the commercial use of this natural, renewable resource. Currently, the increased use of kangaroo meat for human consumption is constrained by local perceptions and demand. This assumption was reinforced by the local surveys contained in this report and showed that attitudes of those in the retail and wholesale trade are comparable to those of the consumers revealed in the RIRDC report. If we valued this resource more highly ourselves, it is very unlikely we would be prepared to sell it for relatively low prices overseas. Our perceptions of the value of kangaroo meat are likely to improve if we replaced the use of kangaroo meat as a low-priced pet food, with the higher-priced use for human consumption, sold as a high value, specialty item. This is the basis of the Grigg proposal. Combined with a restructuring of the industry to include payment for property holders, the increased value of kangaroo meat would present an important alternative income for rangeland land/leaseholders. This would also improve the potential for long-term sustainable use of kangaroos and the encouragement for increased habitat protection and conservation of wildlife. When we analyse the motives behind commercial decisions to sell kangaroo meat, the probable cause of the decision is likely to be based solely on increasing profit

76

margins. It is seemingly a demand-driven reaction that attempts to capatialise on changing public attitudes and is presumably not driven by retail sector concern for sustainable use of resources. By concentrating on export and not local markets the wholesale sector also appears focused on capitalizing from more readily accessed overseas markets rather than the seemingly more difficult task of selling to local markets, thereby changing local attitudes and increasing the perceived value of kangaroo meat. Yet these profit-driven decisions potentially have a great deal of influence on people’s attitudes toward the use of local resources. Promotion by industries and large supermarket chains has a significant impact on what consumers choose to buy. This in turn affects what products we produce and how we use the land. Markets have therefore traditionally failed to support alternative industries that have the potential for sustainable use of native resources. The contradictory attitude that Australians have traditionally had toward wildlife use and habitat conservation has also inhibited the commercial use of wildlife. On the one hand we value highly the conservation of wildlife and may even condemn its use commercially, while on the other we allow destruction of habitat that sees the current trend of habitat loss becoming a real threat to wildlife preservation. If wildlife is given an economic value, not only does it produce a recognised resource to diversify and improve our economic support systems, but it also encourages sustainable use by producing the need to ensure ongoing supplies for the market. This view has produced a recent shift in attitude that sees sustainable use of kangaroos to be a profitable, alternative form of land-use, and as such, provides an additional incentive for the retention and management of natural habitats. Farming kangaroos using traditional agricultural methods of cleared, grazing property with little native vegetation, will see very few advantages for the conservation of habitat and wild populations however. But if kangaroos can be ‘free-ranged’ on large properties containing native vegetation, such as exists in the rangeland areas of Australia, the ideal of using wildlife to maintain sustainable populations and preserve habitat can potentially be achieved. The under-utilisation of the meat and quotas throughout Australia provides a significant potential for industry growth. With around half the kangaroos shot each year being used for hides only, the potential for kangaroo meat consumption, both nationally and internationally provides a way for Australia to become a world leader in sustainably utilizing a renewable native resource. However further long-term growth does require improved understanding of the economic and ecological impacts of kangaroos ‘The inability to quantify the value of our biological resources constrains society’s ability to account for costs associated with loss of biodiversity.’ (Choquenot, et al, 1998 Pg 37). More research is therefore needed to prevent detrimental environmental consequences and to encourage kangaroo management as a renewable resource in rangeland areas. The commercial use of kangaroos is however, increasingly being supported by land/leaseholders. The general reduction in terms of trade for traditional agricultural products in recent years has resulted in many managers having to consider diversification of income for their enterprise. This has led many to contemplate the potential of kangaroo harvesting. They see it as a way of generating additional income, as well as achieving better pest control to realise the accepted goal of reduced total grazing pressure on the rangelands. However, many producers also believe the quota based sustainable commercial harvest of 15-20% of kangaroo populations is ineffective as a method of reducing TGP and continue to see kangaroos as an

77

agricultural pest to be controlled. It is only when kangaroos can be seen as a sustainable resource, to be managed in an ecological and economically sustainable manner, that attitudes to kangaroos and rangeland management will improve (Macarthur, 1999). This will require not only the identification of high value markets to increase the value of kangaroos, but also a fundamental shift in the view of livestock producers toward kangaroos. The major problem that remains for the development of the kangaroo industry therefore appears to be the lack of a strong positive image, both within Australia and internationally. The recent tightening of controls within the kangaroo industry to ensure long-term management objectives are met will assist with the move away from the image of ‘pest control’ towards the development of an image based on resource management. Recent rationalisation that has led to consolidation in the Kangaroo Industry has improved the capability of the industry as a whole. Their capacity to manage fluctuations in supply and demand for product has been strengthened along with their ability to meet changes in domestic and international regulations and requirements. It has also improved their capacity to lobby governments and consumers to improve understanding of the use of kangaroos as a renewable resource and the role the industry plays in kangaroo management. Recent moves by Government and industry to respond to animal welfare lobby activities and media announcements is having some influence on securing and maintaining export markets and has also aided the perception of a commercially-based, sustainable resource industry. Much of this concern comes from animal welfare groups who feel that kangaroos may not be harvested humanely. If negative images of the industry are to be avoided, it is essential that those in the industry adhere strictly to existing regulations and ‘codes of practice’ for the shooting and handling of live animals. Current industry strategies focused on ‘upimaging’ public perceptions and ‘generating positive mainstream media coverage’ (Oogjes 2000) has provided potential for improving perceptions and values of kangaroo meat. However export of kangaroo products, particularly in the European and North American markets, are still constrained by activities of animal welfare lobby groups. Industry response to this has not been very effective in the past and more sophisticated marketing strategies and research programs are needed to counter these continual negative impacts on overseas markets. However, this focus will also need to include strategies aimed at ‘grassroots’ levels such as local butchers and restaurants, if it is to have any real effect. If genuine improvements are to occur, agreement to commit to change will be necessary throughout all levels including Federal and State Governments, industry, landholders and other stakeholders. Increased promotion and education to improve awareness and familiarity levels will be essential to facilitate trial, reuse and continued use of kangaroo meat by consumers. If Western Australians are to benefit from this unique, high-quality product with the potential for reducing fat content and energy-density of the average diet consumed by many Western Australians, attitudes to our use of this valuable resource will need to change. Our awareness and acknowledgment that increasing our perceived value and use of kangaroo meat for human consumption will also increase economic returns from overseas exports, assist local employment and potentially improve the ecological sustainability of our resource production is of major importance. The challenge therefore is to change attitudes so that we are able to manage the sheep rangelands of

78

Australia for social, economic and ecological sustainability and diversity and leave these native resources intact for future generations. 14. REFERENCES.

79

ABC, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Regional News, 3 September 2002, Planned Roo Quota System Changes Spark Job Fears, 2002 Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Alvarez A., & Rogers J., 1997, Sustaining Wildlife?, Paper presented to the Environmental Justice Global Ethics for the 21st Century Conference, University of Melbourne, Australia. Aplin G., Mitchell P., Cleugh H., Pitman A., Rich D., 1996, Global Environmental Crises, An Australian Perspective, Oxford University Press, Australia. Armstrong J., & Abbott I., 1995, Sustainable Conservation - A practical Approach to Conserving Biodiversity in Western Australia, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. Aslin H., and Norton T., 1995, No One Answer - Sustainable Use of Wildlife in a Multicultural Society, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. ANRA, Australian Natural Resources Atlas, 2002, Western Australia: Monitoring Activities, http://audit.ea.gov.au Accessed 17/6/02. Basey G., 2002, Australia's Top 10 Road Kill, www.abc.net.au/northandwest/stories/s586972.htm Accessed 03/07/02 Barson M., Evans G., Fordham D., Walcott J., & White D., 1993, Opportunities for Regional Rural Adjustments, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. Bennett, D., 1995, Issues in the Sustainable Use of Wildlife by Indigenous Peoples; the Convention on Biological Diversity and Native Title, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. Bridgewater, P.,1995, What Conservation? Which Species, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. Buttler D., 4 September 2002, Drought Forcing Dairy Herd Kill, Herald-Sun, 2002 Herald and Weekly Times Limited CALM, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Management Programs for the Red, Western Grey and Euro Kangaroos in Western Australia 1998-2002, Western Australia. Caughley G., Shepherd N., & Short J., 1987, Kangaroos their ecology and management in the sheep rangelands of Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britian.

80

Caughley, G., Sinclair, A.R.E., 1994, Wildlife Ecology and Management, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London. Caughley J., Bayliss P. & Giles J., 1984, Trends in Kangaroo Numbers in Western New South Wales and their Relation to Rainfall, Australian Wildlife Research 11, 415-22. Choquenot D., Caughley J., & McLeod S., 1998, Issues of Commercial Use of Wild Animals in Australia, www.affa.gov.au/corporate_docs/publications/word/rural_science/agrifood/discpapfinal.doc Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra. accessed 04/06/02. Clark C.W., 1990, Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Clark P., & Cottam R., 1995, A Grazier’s Perspective of Lowering Total Grazing Pressure, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. CNEWS, March 14, 2001, Dangerous Food, http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSDangerousFoods0103/14_kang-ap.htm Core, P., 1998, RIRDC Summary Report: Improving Consumer Perceptions of Kangaroo Products, http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/shortreps/improve.html Accessed 6/00. Elliott T., & Woodford K., 1995, Ecology, Commerce and Feral Goats, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, and Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. Environment Australia, 1999, Australia’s Rangeland: Fact Sheet, http://www.ea.gov.au/land/bushcare/publications/rangelands/index.html Accessed 6/2/02 Environment Australia, 2002, Background Information, 2002 Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Quotas http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangaroo/quotas-background.html Accessed 18/5/02. ESD, Ecological Sustainable Development Steering Committee, 1993, Summary Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, http://www.environment.gov.au/psg/igu/nsesd/summary932.html Accessed 23/03/01. Franolich, Phil & Frank Zambonetti, King River, 58 Wittenberg Drive, Canning Vale, 6155 W.A., Ph: 94556688, email kriver@iinet.net.au.

81

Freudenberger D., 2000, Rangeland Researcher Please to Eat Words, http://www.csiro.au/page.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=Goodtimes Accessed 01/01 Freudenberger D., 1998, Kangaroos: Fact and Fiction, http://www.csiro.au/page.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=Kangaroos Factfiction Accessed 01/01 Grigg G., 1995, (a) Kangaroo Harvesting for Conservation of Rangelands, Kangaroos …and Graziers, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Grigg, G., 1995, (b) Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Grigg, G., 1988, Kangaroo harvesting and the Conservation of the Sheep Rangelands, Australian Zoologist, Vol.24(3), New South Wales. Hacker R., McLeod S., Druhan J., December 2000, An Exploratory Analysis of the Effects of Kangaroo Harvesting on Pastoral Productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin, KIAA, NEWR. Haigh, D., and Coleman, B., 1995, The Current Legal Position Affecting the use of Wildlife by Australian Indigenous People, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Hardin G., 1968, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162:1243-8. Ramsay B.J., 1994, Commercial Use of Wild Animals, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Hrdina F., 1997, Marsupial destruction in Queensland 1877-1930, Australian Zoologist 30, 272-86. Johnson M., & Associates Pty Ltd, 2000, An Analysis of the Contribution that Marsupials and Marsupial Research Make to the Australian Economy, http://www.marsupialcrc.com.au/webhome/FACTS/marsupial_contribution.htm Accessed 18/6/02 Kelly J., 1999, Wildlife Are Neither Vermin, Nor Sacred, Australian Science, October 1999. Kelly J.,The Swans are Black. The Australian kangaroo, sacred, vermin or gastronomic delight? IWMC World (International Wildlife Management Conservation Trust), http://www.iwmc.org/mammals/mammals.htm Accessed 6/2/02 KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, February 1997, New Name for an Old Worm, NEWR.

82

KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, December 2000, Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources, NEWR. KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, September 1999, Population Modeling Workshop, NEWR. KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, December 1999, Your Turn Minister, NEWR. KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, February 2001, Qld 2000 harvest data, and An Assessment of the Toxoplasmosis risk in Kangaroo Meat, NEWR. KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, August 2001, Dual Registration, NEWR. KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, February 2002, Market Prospects for 2002, Pet Meat Workshop Report, and Kangaroo Numbers Highest Ever, NEWR Lunney, D., Recher H., & Dunn I., 1986, A Natural Legacy, Pergamon Publishing, Sydney. McCallum H., 1995, Would Property Rights over Kangaroos Necessarily Lead to Their Conservation? Implications of Fisheries Models, in Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Macarthur Consulting Pty Ltd, 1997, Review of the Impact of Government Policies on Kangaroo Industry Commercial Practices, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Research Paper Series No 97/35. Mawson, Peter, Wildlife Officer CALM W.A. Ph: 93340421 email: peterm@calm.wa.gov.au McCarthy M.A., 1996, Red Kangaroo (Marcropus rufus) Dynamics: Effects of Rainfall, Density, Dependence, Harvesting and Environmental Stochasticity, Journal of Applied Ecology 33, 45-53. McLeod S.R., 1999, Current Control Technologies for Management of Overabundant Marsupials, NSW Agriculture, (mcleods@agric.nsw.gov.au) http://www.newcastle.edu.au/department/bi/birjt/marsupialcrc/marsupsymp/currentcontrol.html Australia, Accessed 02/01. McKinna D. et al Pty Ltd, 1999, Marketing of New Animal Products, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation, ACT.

83

McNamara K., & Prince R., 1986, Kangaroo Management in Western Australia, Wildlife Management Program No 3, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia. Mulligan M., 1995, Processing of Exotic Meats, A paper presented by Southern Game Meat Pty Ltd to Meat ’95 in Kangaroo Industry Commercial Practices, Macarthur Consulting Pty Ltd, 1997. Oogjes G., 2000, FOI Reveals ‘Roo Rort’, www.melbourne.net/animals_australia/magazine/roorort.htm Accessed 10/6/01. Payn, C & Associates, 29 February, 2000 KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, February 2000, Background Information, http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM Accessed 01/01 Peters R., 2001, Kangaroo Industry to Move Ahead, Must Break Free of Skippy, Australian Associated Press, 3 July. Pond, Sid, Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, Western Australian representative, and owner of Prota Meats (pet food) Wangara, Ph 940992201. Pople T., & Cairns S., 1995, Impact of Harvesting on Kangaroos, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Pople T., & Grigg G., 2001, Overview of Background Information for Kangaroo Management, Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos in Australia(updated) http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/harvesting/roobg_01.html Accessed 5/10/01, The University of Queensland, Australia. Prince R.I.T., Exploitation of Kangaroos and Wallabies in Western Australia. I. Exploitation and Management of the Red Kangaroo: 1970-1979, Wildlife Research Bulletin of Western Australia No.14 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Perth. Prueuss P., & Rogers J., 1995, Consumptive use of Wildlife: Conservation or Exploitation, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Purtell D., & Associates, 1997, Improving Consumer Perceptions for Kangaroo Products, Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation, ACT. Ramsay B.J., 1994, Commercial Use of Wild Animals in Australia, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Rieks van Klinken, Managing Mesquite in Australia, www.ento.csiro.au/research/weedmgmt/pdf/mesquite.pdf CSIRO, Accessed 4/06/02.

84

Sattler P., 1995, The Greater Conservation Gain From a ‘New’ Kangaroo Industry for the Mulga Olands: Ecologically Sustainable Management, in Conservation Through Sustainable Wildlife, Grigg G., Hale P., & Lunney D., University of Queensland, Australia. Senate Committee, 1997/98, Wildlife Report, Parliament of Australian Senate, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/wild/WLChap2.htm Accessed 14/01/01. Short, Dr., H., 1995, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/1995/March/Day-09/pr-176.html accessed 11/2/01 Stacker, L., 1988, The Case Against Free-Range Kangaroo Harvesting, Australian Zoologist, Vol 24(3) 153-8 Switala, J., 1995, The Potential Supply and Value of Kangaroo Meat, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Tisdell C., 1995, Does the Economic Use of Wildlife Favour Conservation and Sustainability?, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Turnbridge D., 1995, Aspects of Aboriginals’ Traditional Relationship to the Environment, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia. Wallace N., 1992, Economics of a Sustainable Agriculture, in Natural Resource Management, an Economic Perspective, Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Commonwealth of Australia. Wilson G., April 2001, KIAA, Kangaroo Industry Association of Association of Australia, Conservation Initiative to Focus on Sustainable Utilisation, NEWR Wilson G., McNee A., & Platts P., 1992, Wild Animal Resources, Their Use by Aboriginal Communities, Bureau of Rural Resources, Canberra. Young M., & Wilson A., 1995, When Will it Pay to Farm Kangaroos, in Conservation Through Sustainable Use of Wildlife, Grigg G, Hale P, & Lunney D, University of Queensland, Australia.

85

APPENDIX 1 Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia April 2000 Kangaroo Skin Exports Kangaroo Meat Exports Country 1998 1999 2000 Country 1998 1999 2000 Bangladesh 6569 11470 15000 Austria 492529 216694 258052 Brazil 25 79 Belgium 502945 277371 58025 Burma 21046 46803 25323 Bulgaria 1401087 560146 124008 Canada 249 50 4 Canada 100 16 Romania 402 602 Denmark 1110 Dominican Republic 1566 2018 1675 France 288355 281775 467010 France 701 Germany 415987 192178 333198 Germany 116111 167411 155131 Hong Kong 79920 121122 40037 Guam Indonesia 39914 172327 120150 Hong Kong 65871 142316 85670 Italy 68982 47966 21010 Reunion 1650 Japan 114557 57073 8497 India 29601 66003 29605 Macau 176324 124801 12021 Indonesia 201698 124419 122580 Maldives 277 301 Ireland 1 Malta 505 40000 Italy 852846 507971 497752 Netherlands 486035 480425 633175

Japan 634873 550896 262822 New Caledonia 2187 1091 615

Malaysia 40 2751 New Zealand 1483 23586 3574 Mexico 10545 Burma 18630 Netherlands 4750 199 20 PNG 85249 137015 105631 Slovak republic 3755 China 107241 142276 176143 NZ 48655 64458 46253 Philippines 449964 Pakistan 2445 196 384 Poland 3100 China 68764 65838 68790 Portugal 40 38406 33478 Philippines 5736 2687 146 Reunion 29629 27009 19582 Poland 10 Russia 80430 207590 1930716 Portugal Singapore 100 2463 17630 Korea 15890 24343 30953 Sth Africa 362852 1189627 953448 Bulgaria 5000 Spain 2310 1250 Saudi Arabia 16455 Sri Lanka 50 220 Singapore 7852 17625 8350 Sweden 19250 Sth Africa 5 1276 Switzerland 20606 23941 29807 Spain 2472 11012 6624 Thailand 50 405 29807 Switzerland 46 1470 Trinidad & Tobago 156 Taiwan 42962 26286 10397 UK 36099 11287 18105 Thailand 14022 10313 27558 USA 184322 45206 52814 United Arab Emirates 31857 82550 78200 Vanuatu 17 10 UK 717 647 55 Vietnam 1364 20433 10096 USA 58598 82236 61439 Zimbabwe 29 Vietnam 4445 20028 10933 Bosnia 187605

TOTAL 2267809 2033298 1556750 Czech Republic 93374

TOTAL 5429540 4228048 5768028

86

APPENDIX 2 BUTCHER SURVEY KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 1. Does your business sell Kangaroo Meat for human consumption? YES (Go to Q2) 1 NO 2 (a) - if no - have you ever considered selling kangaroo meat? YES 1 NO 2 (b) What are the reasons you don’t sell kangaroo meat? __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (Go to Q17) - if yes - (Ask only those businesses selling kangaroo meat) 2. Do you supply any businesses with kangaroo meat for YES 1 human consumption? No (Go to Q.4) 2 3. Approximately how many businesses do you supply? 1-2 1 3-5 2 6-10 3 More 4 4. Approximately how many times a month would you sell kangaroo meat to private customers for their own consumption? (Read out) Once every 6 months 1 Once every 3 months 2 Once or twice a month 3 3-6 times a month 4 More 5 5. When private customers purchase from you, approximately how many kilograms would they purchase at a time? Less than 1 kilo 1 1 - 2 kilo 2 3 - 6 kilo 3 6 - 10 kilo 4 More than 10 5 It varies 6 6. Do you regularly have it on display? YES 1 NO 2 7. Do you sell it mostly: (Read out) chilled 1 frozen 2 fresh 3 8. How long have you been selling it? Up to 1 year 1 1-2 years 2 3-5 years 3 over 5 years 4 other 5 9. What made you decide to start selling it? ____________________________________________________________________ 10. Do you get your meat supplied from the local WA distributor or from the eastern states? Local (Go to Q11) 1 Eastern 2 . (a) - if eastern - what are the reasons you don’t buy from the local distributors? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

87

11. Do you think that the popularity of kangaroo meat has increased in the last 5 years? YES 1 NO 2 (a) Why do you say that? _________________________________________________________________ 12. How often do your customers ask you for information on how to prepare and cook kangaroo meat? Never 1 Rarely 2 Now and then 3 Often 4 13. In general, how readily do you feel you are able to help them with this request? Not at all 1 To some extent 2 I am easily able to help 3 14. Is the price that you sell kangaroo meat for dearer, cheaper or about the same as other meat prices? Much dearer 1 Slightly dearer 2 About the same 3 Slightly cheaper 4 Much cheaper 5 15. What is the approximate range in prices that you sell kangaroo meat for? ________________________________________________________ 16. In your opinion, does the price make any difference to whether people buy it or not? YES 1 NO 2 Sometimes 3 ASK ALL - ROTATE 17. What do you think are the reasons why people don’t buy kangaroo meat: Still think of it as pet meat 1 Don’t think about it 2 Not promoted or displayed in store 3 National Symbol/Believe it should be preserved 4 Because it’s ‘Furry, Cuddly’ 5 Believe kangaroos have disease 6 Don’t like flavour 7 Don’t know how to cook 8 Too tough 9 Other _______________________________________________ 10 18. Now I would like to get your reactions to some statements about some ideas that have been suggested to try and improve the use of kangaroo meat. I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree that the following would encourage customers to use more; ROTATE Strongly agree (1) slightly agree (2) neither agree nor disagree (3) slightly disagree (4) strongly disagree (5) (a) The availability of more value added forms such as sausages, kebabs, burgers, pate, terrines, _____ (b) Promoting the health aspects more, such as that: kangaroo meat has only 1- 2% fat content, polyunsaturated fats are present that help reduce blood cholesterol, _____ (c) Educating people about how to prepare and cook kangaroo meat _____ (d) Getting supermarkets to sell it _____ (e) Telling people about the environmental benefits and emphasizing that kangaroo meat is disease free and safe to eat. _____ (f) Promoting kangaroo meat as a quality meat, not one that is only used for pet food. _____

88

19. Are you aware of any form of promotion of kangaroo meat for human consumption that has occurred in WA in the last 2 years? YES 1 NO (Go to Q20) 2 (a) - if yes - Which organization or business promoted this? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 20. In the past year, do you remember receiving any information, advertising material or recipes for kangaroo meat for display inside your shop? YES 1 NO (Go to Q21) 2 (a) - if yes - What organization or business has supplied you with this type of material? Company from WA 1 Company from eastern states 2 KIAA 3 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 4 CSIRO 5 Other______________________________________ 6 DK 7 21. Have you received any information on the standardised range of met cuts for kangaroo meat that is now available? YES 1 NO 2 22. What could be done to increase the demand for kangaroo meat in WA? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DEMOGRAPHICS Name of Butchers shop _____________________________________________________________________What Suburb ___________________________________________________ Phone_____________________________________________ Respondent’s Name _________________________ Could you please tell me your approximate Age Group; 20’s 1 30’s 2 40’s 3 50’s 4 60’s 5 Thank you for your help. Just to remind you my name is Lynda Braddick and I am an honours student at Murdoch University.

89

APPENDIX 3 CHEFS/CATERERS SURVEY KANGAROO MEAT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 1. Does your restaurant ever have kangaroo meat on the menu? YES (Go to Q2) 1 NO 2 (a) -if no- Have you ever considered adding kangaroo meat to your menu? YES 1 NO(Go to Q15) 2 (b) - if yes - What are your reasons for deciding against it? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ - if yes - (Ask only those businesses that use kangaroo meat) 2. Approximately how long have you had kangaroo meat as a dish on your menu? (Read out) Up to 1 yr 1 1 - 2 yrs 2 2 - 5 yrs 3 Over 5 yrs 4 3. Is it a regular item that you continuously have on your menu, or do you sometimes take it off and give it a rest for a while? Regular item 1 Irregular item 2 Other ___________________________ 3 4. At any one time, how many dishes on your menu would you have using kangaroo meat? 1 - 2 1 3 - 5 2 6 - 10 3 More 4 5. Approximately what percentage of your weekly red meat use do you think this would be? Would it be (Read out) 1 - 2% 1 5% - 10% 2 10% - 20% 3 a Quarter 4 more 5 6. How do you usually cook or present your dishes? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Thinking about what people generally choose from your menu; Overall, how many times a week would kangaroo meat be chosen from your menu? Would it be (Read out) Once or twice a week 1 3 - 4 times a week 2 once or twice a day 3 More __________ 4 8. What method of cooking or presenting kangaroo meat do your customers prefer? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 9. What do you think is the level of satisfaction of most of your customers who order kangaroo meat (Read out) Very satisfied 1 Fairly satisfied 2 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 3 Fairly unsatisfied 4 Unsatisfied 5

90

10. Have you ever had problems with cooking or presentation of kangaroo meat? YES 1 NO (Go to Q11) 2 - if yes - What type of complaints have you received from customers? Meat too tough 1 Too dry 2 Over cooked 3 Undercooked 4 Taste is too strong 5 Other _________________________ 6 11. Have you had any problems with supply of kangaroo meat such as; (Read out) Difficulty finding supplier 1 Difficult getting supply of certain cuts 2 Pre-packs available were unsuitable 3 Difficult to obtain fresh meat 4 Other ______________________________________________ 5 NO 6 12. In your opinion, would locals or tourists be your biggest clientele for kangaroo meat? Locals 1 Tourists 2 50/50 3 Not sure 4 13. Do you have locals who regularly ask for kangaroo dishes? YES 1 NO 2 DK 3 14. What age of person do you think is more likely to order kangaroo meat? Under 30’s 1 30 - 60 years 2 Over 60 years 3 Any age 4 (ASK ALL) 15. Do you feel that the popularity of kangaroo meat has increased in the past 5 years? YES 1 NO 2 DK 3 (a) What makes you say that? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16. Now I would like to get your reactions to some statements about some ideas that have been suggested to try and improve the use of kangaroo meat. I would like you to tell me how much you agree or disagree that the following would encourage customers to use more; ROTATE Strongly agree (1) slightly agree (2) neither agree nor disagree (3) slightly disagree (4) strongly disagree (5) (a) The availability of more value added forms such as sausages, kebabs, burgers, pate, terrines, _____ (b) Promoting the health aspects more, such as that: kangaroo meat has only 1- 2% fat content, polyunsaturated fats are present that help reduce blood cholesterol, _____ (c) Educating people about how to prepare and cook kangaroo meat _____ (d) Getting supermarkets to sell it _____ (e) Telling people about the environmental benefits and emphasizing that kangaroo meat is disease free and safe to eat. _____ (f) Promoting kangaroo meat as a gourmet meat, not one that is only used for pet food. _____

91

17. Are you aware of any form of promotion of kangaroo meat for human consumption that has occurred in WA in the last 2 years? YES 1 NO (Go to Q 18) 2 - if yes - What organization or business promoted this? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 18. During the past year, have you received any information or recipes promoting the use of kangaroo meat? YES 1 NO (Go to Q.19) 2 NOT SURE (Go to Q.19) 3

- if yes - Do remember what organization or business was distributing this information? - Company from WA 1

Company from eastern states 2 KIAA 3 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 4 CSIRO 5 Other______________________________________ 6 DK 7 19. In your opinion, is there anything else could be done to increase the demand for kangaroo meat in WA? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ DEMOGRAPHICS Name of Restaurant? __________________________________________________________________ What Suburb _______________________ Phone: _________________________ Name of Respondent ________________________ Age of Respondent 20 - 30 1 31 - 40 2 41 - 50 3 Over 50 4 Thank you for your help. Just to remind you my name is Lynda Braddick and I am an honours student at Murdoch University.