WHAT is it Skip? You say those well-meaning but
misleading environmentalists are at it again? You mean they're
trying to whip up hysteria
over an increase in the kangaroo harvesting quota from 5.5
million to 6.9 million? You say they want you and your prolific
mates
to start acting like international stars again? They want you
to pretend to be warm and cuddly, like those nasty, piddling
little koalas? Tsk tsk tsk, tsk tsk tsk.
While the animal on
the left side of but coat or arms looks like Skippy — except
that the hundreds of roos that played the bush kangaroo were
Eastern Greys and not Reds — its potential
goes way beyond TV and tourist appeal, For too long we've seen
the kangaroo as either an untouchable icon, a cheap pet food
or a pest that threatens farmers’ livelihoods. All of these
views are true in part but do nothing for the kangaroos, their
land or the Australians who share it.
It's time for cityslickers to dump the gooeyness and farmers to
ditch the redneck pioneerism so we can all recognise that well-managed
harvesting of the abundant kangaroo species for meat and shoe leather
is not only a big money spinner but also a way to minimise willy-nilly
slaughtering of plague roo populations. Indeed, the survival of
our national symbol depends not on greenies who peddle misinformation
about roos but on all Australians accepting them as natural resource,
perfectly suited for ecologically sustainable harvesting alongside
introduced animals or, even better, on their own. |
The populations of the most abundant macropods
- the Werstern Grey, Eastern Grey, Red, and Euro/Wallaroo - has
risen in the past
two decades, despite drought and an annual, legal harvest of
2.5 million to 3.5 million animals. The quota represents 15-20
per
cent of the population. While some environmentalists claim the
quota reflects only part of the kill, it is rarely filled.
Unlike
Japan's approach to whale populations, Australia is not endangering
the survival of any struggling macropod species. The
aim is to maintain abundant roo populations across existing
ranges, not to reduce them - that would be self-defeating for
the industry
and would quickly lose public support. It is in commercial
shooters' interests to kill within limits and guidelines lest
they threaten
their own industry. Licenses to kill roos are largely issued
to good shooters, and laws deter them from using inhumane methods.
That is not to say kangaroo harvesting is trouble-free. The fate
of orphaned joeys remains anathema to most, and the industry must
ensure the general mix of populations is not skewed by selective
killing of mature males. But the greatest threat to roos remains
killing outside commercial guidelines. The only way to preserve
and monitor roo populations is to have quotas. Without them, roos
would, be regarded once more as merely a pest meaning demands to
kill them would never be sated until their populations - either
abundant or rare — posed little or no threat to farmland. |
It is far better to foster a strong roo industry that makes the
animals worth something, so even those most affected by them, recognise
they are worth preserving and that degradation of native vegetation
is not the only way to gain financially from the bush.
If we care for our national symbol, we should ditch the cute and
cuddly syndrome that afflicts our relationship with the kangaroo.
Australia, you're standing in it, eating it and helping to preserve
it - and that's nothing to be ashamed of. Isn't that right Skip?
|
