Redneck Ecologist
Essentially, the population of resident kangas has exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment to which the roos are confined – end result, a degraded and “exceedingly” artificially modified ecosystem resulting in reduced floral diversity, limited food resources and starving kangaroos. The aim to reduce Belconnen’s population to round 100 animals, whilst this could potentially, but unlikely, reduce genetic diversity and in turn genetic fitness of the specific population it will in fact trigger the remaining population to breed like, dare I say it, rabbits. Any farmer will tell you that by significantly reducing a population of roos does not make the population disappear, it merely facilitates a far greater reproductive rate, the end result, a continued culling/wildlife management program. Culling will ensure the continued health of both the grasslands and the Belconnen roo’s in to the future. The method of culling is in my opinion outrageous as is the waste of a valued resource…
“The Greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way it treats it’s animals” – M. Ghandi (http://www.canberraroos.com/facts.html).
IT is with regret that I feel the need to write this article to present what appears to be the sentiment of a quiet minority, those that support the cull of the kangaroos on the former Belconnen Naval Transmitter Station (BNTS). Excuse me if that assumption is wrong! But in the face of grossly one-sided media coverage of the issue I wish to express my support (in part) of the cull of the kangaroos; I say in part for several reasons to which this articale aims to qualify and elaborate on.
I write as a qualified vertebrate biologist, former wildlife tour operator, current environmental consultant and passionate holder of a firearms license, but before I’m categorised as an “environmental redneck”, let me state that I believe both sides of the culling argument have valid points and that I believe this issue could have, and should have been handled much better.
To summarise the current state of affairs, the Belconnen Naval Transmitter Station (BNTS) is a 116 hectare parcel of land owned by the Australian Government. Recent surveys indicate there are roughly 500 kangaroos, thus one kangaroo to every quarter hectare of land – hardly enough to support sustainable grazing of such a large herbivore. Studies indicate that the land is of relatively high conservation value due to the presence of native temperate grasslands within the ACT, including plants listed as vulnerable; specifically the “Ginninderra Peppercress”. Furthermore, it is believed that these grasslands provide breeding habitat for the Golden Sun Moth.
Essentially, the population of resident kanga’s has exceeded the carrying capacity of the environment to which the roo’s are confined – end result, a degraded and “exceedingly” artificially modified ecosystem resulting in reduced floral diversity, limited food resources and starving kangaroos. One does not have to look too far back to be reminded of the images of emaciated kangaroos entering Canberra’s suburbs in the search of pick after the tragic bushfires of 2003 – how can an animal lover commit the animals they love so much to a similar fate – who’s the ethical one now!
It is important to recognise that a report commissioned by HLA-Envirosciences “advised that there was an imminent risk that the population of kangaroos at the site would exceed available food supplies, and that will lead to starvation concerns over the welfare of the animals” (HLA Interim Kangaroo Management Strategy). With this in mind, the RSPCA assessed the health of the population and determined that the animals were in fact starving to death – a classic animal welfare scenario. Thus in the face of prosecution, the Australian Government ordered the Australian Department of Defense to cull a vast majority of the population.
The key benefits of such action include improved health of the vulnerable grasslands and the associated benefits of having healthly grasslands to the greater ecosystem, and secondly, the cull would ensure no long-term suffering of a population destined to starve. Again, do we need to be reminded about the suffering koala’s on Kangaroo Island… in essence the issue is exactly the same, whereby a population does not have the abilty to self-regulate due to the impact of human activity, resulting in over-population, over-grazing, collapse of the ecosystem and the inevitable suffering of our most iconic species.
Here in Tasmania there are semi-regular culls of Forrester kangaroo and Cape Barren Geese on Maria Island, both of which are listed species. This has proven to be the most “effective” method of population control.
This leads us to the question, what would you do if you saw an endangered animal eating an endangered plant? Especially difficult if the endangered plant is not the preferred food of choice.
To some degree this question is irrelevant, however the point I aim to raise is; it is accepted that the grasslands of Belconnen are deserved of protection and that successful management of the grassland communities will have broad environmental benefits at the ecosystem level. This is in stark contrast to the resident population of kangaroos which are not currently vulnerable (on-site) and under the current culling program are unlikely to become threatened or vulnerable in the foreseeable future. I doubt these kanga’s represent a sub-species worthy of genetic conservation, that to all intents and purposes would be lost if they were to be relocated! Another question, whats more important, maintaining healthy communities of flora or fauna… or both?
I find macropods an amazing animal, I have worked with captive populations, conducted surveys of wild populations, conducted spot-lighting tours at one of Australia’ iconic tourism destinations and yes shot them on many occasions for reasons of food and population control. I would be totally opposed to a culling event that resulted in a localised extinction of this marvellous animal, however the proposed reduction of the population to roughly 100 animals constitutes in my opinion an ethical and scientifically rigid exercise.
Macropods have the ability to regulate their population in any given environment where they have the flexibility to move freely throughout the landscape. Obviously this is not the case at Belconnen, and is similar of the examples previously given. Macropods have an amazing ability to reproduce, having up to three stages of reproduction occuring at any one time. They are characterised by a very short gestation period and in many cases have the ability to arrest development of embryos, and most species breed soon after birth. The female even has the ability to alter the type of milk she produces to either hasten or retard development of embryos in direct response to external factors. A female can at any one time can have a fertilised blastocyst ready to go, a developing embryo on the teat and have an emergent joey suckling concurrently, therefore macropods have an amazing ability to reproduce quickly; or alternatively slow the reproductive cycle in response to environmental factors such as limited food and water. Obviously this reprductive cycle cannot prevent starvation of the existing population in periods of extended drought or lack of food.
Macropods have evolved to be Australia’s native version of the rabbit – to the extent that the phrase should state “to breed like a roo…”, if we want to adopt to the Easter Bilby why not adopt more appropriate phraseology!
The aim to reduce Belconnen’s population to round 100 animals, whilst this could potentially, but unlikely, reduce genetic diversity and in turn genetic fitness of the specific population it will in fact trigger the remaining population to breed like, dare I say it, rabbits. Any farmer will tell you that by significantly reducing a population of roo’s does not make the population disappear, it merely facilitates a far greater reproductive rate, the end result, a continued culling/wildlife management program.
Now to address the issue of the cull itself. I believe the fact these animals are being slaughtered in the manner they are (corralled into a maze of hessian and security fencing) is due to the outpooring of public pressure from a minority of animal lovers who do not fully appreciate and understand the issues at hand. I suspect these protestors also support saving orangutans and highland mountain gorillas but wouldn’t know the difference between a Black Rat and a Blue-gray Mouse that happens to be a criticlly endangered endemic species.
I do support the cull for reasons previously mentioned. What I am adamently opposed to is the method by which these animals are being slaughtered, and the misuse of an valuable resource (i.e. meat).
I find the method of systematically herding these animals in to a maze of hessian and security type fencing both unethical and manifestly excessive. Macropods are not designed to be constantly on the move, more so graze an area, digest, move on etc; what they are designed for is low energy-use mobility with a quick response to danger. This is why the thylacine evolved its long gape and supposed low metabolic rate. This top of the food chain predator did not ambush its prey (primarily macropods of differing species); however it evolved to exhaust its prey by loping after the animal at low speed over vast distances and attacking the animal once exhausted.
Macropods herded 15-20 at a time (technique currently under use at Belconnen) not only directly stresses both individuals and the population as a whole but disrupts what is a very complex social structure. Given the fact that the cull is reportedly going to take up to three weeks to complete, the amount of stress these animals are going to indure is unacceptable. Personal accounts and numerous photos and videos (available on the internet) demonstrate animals collapsing from exhaustion, stressing and causing injury to themselves and others before either collapsing or being darted prior to them being euthanased. How is this an ethical and/or acceptable means of culling?
So yes I do support the protestors in some respect. What I’d rather see is trained and skilled marksmen given the opportunity to cull the population by shooting them using correct calibre rifles over a much shorter time frame – it is likely that only three nights would be needed. It would not take long to assess the age structure of the population and determine the correct numbers of each cohort to be culled. Skilled marksmen would have the knowledge to select and kill the correct number of each age cohort of the population, leaving young, middle age and dominant adult roo’s of both sexes to reproduce and rebuild the population. And for those horrified by the killing of pouch young of newly emerged joeys, my blurb on macropod reproductive biology should demonstrate that it is more than likley a female will have pouch young, killing mother and young is one and the same.
In terms of a wasted resource my other bone of contention, is the complete waste of the meat. We know that wallaby and kangaroo meat is some of the most lean on the market, it also happens to be the cheapest and best for you. However I dont wish to enter the arguement regarding the difficulties surrounding taking wild game to the commercial market. What I would like to point out is that it is likely that there are commercial operators in existance operating near Canberra that could have potentially taken the meat for processing and in turn human consumption.
Alternatively, we constantly here that the RSPCA does not recieve Federal funding, one assumes that one of the major operating costs of the RSPCA is feed. Have we forgotten that dogs are carnivores as are cats? Alas, my view on cats is best saved for a later article, but ask yourself, did dog loaf, cans of processed offal, dried balls of god knows what and bloody dental bones exist hundreds and thousands of years ago – NO, they didn’t; these animals are meant to eat meat, they’re meant to eat bones and guts!
Why couldn’t some agreement have been made to have the slaughtered animals processed for either human or animal consumption? Surely there would have been some in-kind support mechanisms from a variety of interests, surely the Government could have spotted the bill to cover the costs of slaughter, transport and processing, to ensure such a fantastic resource would not be wasted. Surely this proposal from slaughter to processing would have cost significantly less than the idiotic strategy currently employed. We should be promoting the consumption of roo meat not turning this issue in to the latest Star Wars edition!
In my opinion this whole episode reeks of bureacracy gone made, proliferated by a minority of animal lovers who have no real understanding to the true issues at hand. It would be unethical to not cull the kangaroo’s of Belconnen. It would be unethical and unscientific to translocate the surplus kangaroo’s. Let the wild populations look after themselves, there is scarce information concerning the continued welfare of translocated kangaroos.
Culling will ensure the continued health of both the grasslands and the Belconnen roos in to the future. The method of culling is in my opinion outrageous as is the waste of a valued resource. Do the protestors even fathom how many roos are killed each night across this country, I bet they’re not worried about the destruction of native forests more than an hours drive down the road… My advice to the protestors, walk your dog elsewhere and take in to account the principles of a whole of ecosystem approach to environmental management and don’t attach yourself to fluffy iconic species; sometimes culling is the best option!
Feed back is most welcome….
These are merely the views of the
Redneck Ecologist
Disclaimer: I do not pretend to understand the intricies of this complex issue and have found it hard to get the facts of the matter. I write on the basis of the limited information I have found and will be more than happy to retract any statement found to be incorrect or misleading.
