May '99

Dear Mr Kelly,

I am a 3rd year biology student at Sydney Uni. I have the uncomfortable task of having to argue on a topic with which I disagree. I have to try and convince everyone that kagaroos should NOT replace traditional stock in arid and semi-arid areas. My research has enabled me to understand the industry and it's problems much better - I am arguing that although Kangaroos are better for the land, farming is simply not a viable option economically until demand for kangaroos significantly increases. I'd just like to thank you for your very useful web-page on the roo industry. Hopefully I can convince my classmates to eat more kangaroo.

Yours sincerely

Alice Carter

Thanks for the email, your intended argument clearly points out one of the most frustrating elements over the debate about the kangaroo industry.

It is widely accepted by Australian ecological managers that indigenising our agriculture utilising the animals which belong here has the potential to generate significant environmental gains. However one of the biggest factors in slowing down the realisation of this dream is opposition from radical 'conservation' organisations. Many of these are internationally based and have little understanding of the realities of the Australian rangelands. I'm sure they are well meaning but their opposition to the industry is actually resulting in a conservation loss, rather than a gain.

You see it's extremely difficult for the industry to market kangaroo meat internationally if every time they attempt to do so radical conservation groups launch an anti-industry campaign.

If the industry can't market its product then we can't generate demand quickly enough to see kangaroo production replace sheep in the rangelands. The result is the continual land degradation caused by grazing our fragile country with a hard-hoofed exotic animal which is not adapted to it.

Regards

John Kelly, Development Manager