Viva, a case study in misinformation

The organisation, Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, has attacked every livestock industry under the sun. A quick look at their website (www.viva.org.uk) will demonstrate that they will stop at nothing to have humans not do anything at all with any animal species. Their campaign against the kangaroo industry is based around a so called 'report', titled Under Fire, which makes a puseudo-scientifc attempt to portray the kangaroo industry as unsustainable and morally corrupt.

The Vegetarians International 'report' is highly emotive, cites little scientific evidence, is based on peoples opinions and treats the truth very casually to say the least. The 'reports' general level of reliability can quickly be demonstrated by a close look at its opening paragraph. This states:

"The official kill rate (of kangaroos) for export in 2001 is 5.5 million animals, slaughtered mainly for their skin and meat. Official statistics ignore the millions of joeys (young kangaroos) who also die when their mothers are shot, which vastly increases the true scale of the slaughter. When non-commercial and illegal kills are included, together with the large number of road kills, the figure is in the region of 10 million."

The official commercial quota of kangaroos which could be killed in 2001 was indeed 5.5 million. HOWEVER this merely represents the total allowable commercial take. The actual number harvested was 3.392 million (see the Australian Government records at http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/quota/2001.html). Viva are deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting data and playing with words. Further they add another 5 million to the 'legal kill rate' without citing at any place in the report any reliable evidence to support such numbers. The claim made in the 'reports' very first paragraph, represents hearsay and a play on words. In the light of this how can any of the rest of the document be trusted?

Viva make a broad rash of claims against the kangaroo industry. Some are examined in detail below. More detailed information on the kangaroo harvest is also given in the document Kangaroo Industry Background at http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM.

Viva suggest kangaroo harvesting is unsustainable.

One of Viva's principal claims is that the kangaroo industry threatens the survival of the commercially harvested kangaroos and risks driving them extinct. As has already been noted they mis-represent the allowable take as the actual current kangaroo harvest. However at no point do they note that the quota is the maximum sustainable yield of the population. It represents 10-12% of the population and is carefully calculate so that is even if the quota was taken it would not threaten population numbers. Details of this process are given in Kangaroo Industry Background.

Further Viva cite information on the non-commercial kill from 16 years ago as representative of current practices. The do not acknowledge that as the commercial take has increased in recent years, the non-commercial pest mitigation kill has decreased. For example in South Australia a supplementary quota is issued as a part of the total quota. This can be used for non-commercial pest mitigation, it has dropped from 505,000 in 1997 to 297,920 in 2001 (see http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/stats.html). Similarly the Viva report cites a 'quote' from a supposed National Parks officer without providing a reference from which the quote has been sourced. This hardly represents sound scientific reporting.

At no point do Viva note that the population estimates produced by well refined scientific processes show a stable, and recently dramatically increasing kangaroo population.

In fact the current estimated population of 58.6 million is the highest ever and means there are more than twice as many kangaroos in Australia as there are cattle! This in spite of the rising commercial harvest, clearly making a mockery of the Viva claim, "there are worrying signs of populations falling today".

As an attack on the quota setting process Viva in their 'report' claim:

"you would expect sizable fluctuations in state quotas to accommodate the rise and fall in kangaroo numbers. The general trend has been a steady increase in state kills since the 1970s. Even in 1982 to 83, during a severe drought which caused kangaroo numbers to drop to 11 million; the kangaroo quotas were set at more than 3 million annually."

The reliability of this claim can easy be dismissed by the graph below clearly showing quotas fluctuating dramatically with population estimates (Popple and Grigg 2001).

Viva claim kangaroo harvesting is cruel

Central to viva's allegations of cruelty in the kangaroo harvest is video footage obtained by a film crew commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare in 1994. Viva claim it shows an 'experienced, unlicensed but commercial killer' and represent it as portraying standard industry practice. The film does show extreme acts of cruelty being committed against kangaroos. However it came to light in prosecutions against the shooter in the film, that he was not a licensed kangaroo shooter, was not supplying kangaroos to the commercial industry, did not have permission to shoot on the property he was filmed on and was actually entrapped into performing his misdeeds by the film crew telling him they were from an American game shooters magazine (NPWS 1997). The disturbing thing about the entire incident is the fact that the so called animal welfarists encouraged him to commit his misdeeds and stood by whilst he did so without attempting to stop him. The only thing preventing them from being prosecuted being that they left the country.

Elsewhere in their 'report' Viva claim that the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, "is a guideline for shooters to follow but lacks any clout in law". This is clearly not the case since adherence to it is a condition of every kangaroo harvesting license, for example in the State of New South Wales harvester licenses state at condition number one:

"All kangaroos must be shot in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos."

These licenses are issued under the National parks and Wildlife Act 1974 - section 123, thus clearly giving the Code legal enforceability. Failure to adhere to the Code can lead to the license (and livelihood) being removed (NPWS 2001).

Viva also claim the Code allows for the use of shotguns. However no State allows shotguns to be used for the commercial harvest of kangaroos. Only one state, Tasmania, allows the use of shotguns at all, and then only in recreational and strictly non-commercial shooting. Another example of Viva's unfortunate propensity to play with words and mis-represent the truth.

In yet another example of twisting the truth Viva claim:

"Kangaroos are supposed to be killed by licensed shooters who are supposed to understand a Code of Practice governing the killing. The statement above implies that all kangaroos killed for meat/skin are shot by professional shooters. This is not the case. In fact, according to the Australian Wildlife Protection Council many shooters are itinerant part-timers."

Yes, many harvesters only do so on a part time basis. However for any harvester to be licensed he must have passed a rigorous assessment and accreditation procedure by two Government Departments, which includes assessment of his competency with his firearm. Thus all licensed harvesters are professional and competent, be they full time or part time.

The document Kangaroo Harvesting Background deals with animal welfare in the kangaroo harvest in detail. As does a recently released RSPCA report which demonstrates extremely high levels of compliance with the Code of Practice. In a major survey across all states in which kangaroo are harvested commercially, it shows head shot rates of 96%, with the balance being largely high in the neck and delivering a "relatively painless death" (RSPCA 2002). However all things can always be improved and the kangaroo industry early in 2002 requested the Minister to initiate a review of the Code to further improve the welfare outcomes in the harvest.

Viva claim the harvest threatens the genetic integrity of kangaroos

The claim that harvesting is weakening the genetic strength of the kangaroo population is one of the most disingenuous of Viva's claims. The only evidence brought forward to support it are vague comments made in 1999 by one scientist about possible effects.

Compare this with four major studies by respected scientists who have looked deeply into the question.

1) An examination of the question submitted to the NSW National parks and Wildlife Service in 2001 concluded: "Currently, there is no evidence of real or potential genetic 'deterioration' due to harvesting, nor any reason to suspect it. Indeed, indications are that kangaroo numbers would have to reduced to extremely low levels for genetic impacts to become important and by then other impacts, such as demographic disruption, would be overridingly important" (Olsen and Braysher 2001)

2) A extensive report into factors affecting genetic makeup in kangaroos by the University of Queensland concluded that: "The effects of the commercial harvest are therefore unlikely to produce genetic changes in the population. First, the heritability of the characters in question is low. Second, the selection differential is low because differences in fitness between younger and older adult males is small, older males do not appear to monopolise matings, only a small proportion of older males are selected against (so most animals are in the selected group), and only a small proportion of the population is harvested." (Hale 2001)

3) A study of Queensland kangaroo populations harvested at rates of 0 to 30% has shown no differences in the genetic diversity of the various populations. That is intensively harvested populations show no reductions in genetic diversity compared to unharvested ones (Pople 1996). This study also cites information showing virtual uniformity of genetic codes across widely dispersed kangaroo populations, suggesting there has been no effect by the extensive harvesting to date on the species.

4) A soon to be published study has applied extremely sophisticated computer modeling to demonstrate that even after several hundred years of intensive harvesting there would be no impact on the genetic makeup of the population. A large cause of this being that there are always areas of rugged terrain in which kangaroos are never harvested (refugia) and migration of animals and their genetic material out of these areas offset any selection which may occur through harvesting (Hacker pers com)

Viva claim their protests have had a major impact on the kangaroo industry

After reading their material the uniformed could be excused for thinking Viva have all but killed the kangaroo industry. Indeed one headline of their 'report' reads, "Viva ends the UK trade". Once again they are simply playing with words. It is true several supermarkets stopped selling kangaroo in response to Viva's campaign. Whilst we can make no allegations it's apparent that some of the most telling elements in this decision were bomb threats and threats of violence to the children of the Directors of the supermarket chains. However there is still a sizable trade in kangaroo meat to the UK, in 2001 this market took almost 20,000 kg.

It is also important to note that even at the highest level of imports, immediately before the Viva campaign, the UK market represented only 3% of the total exports of kangaroo meat.

Yet Viva attempt to portray their campaign as having had a major impact on the industry. They for example cite a newspaper report of comments from the Manager of a export processor saying it has destroyed their $1 million/year trade to the UK. Viva really should be a little more cautious in their use of newspaper reports and perhaps check the 'facts' they claim to portray. The business in question was not, did not, nor ever has supplied kangaroo to the UK. Nor was it a major exporter in any way at the time.

Further Viva claim: "It seems ironic that Australians don't like kangaroo meat and consistently reject it for human consumption". This completely ignores the fact that human consumption of kangaroo meat has increased 50 fold in Australian over the past 10 years and that it is now widely available in supermarkets and restaurants in every capital city.

The extensive public support for the kangaroo industry in Australia is demonstrated in detail in Kangaroo Industry Background.

In conclusion

This brief examination of the reliability of Viva's information clearly demonstrates...it's not.

The Viva document 'Under Fire' is full of false and misleading information, half truths and outright misrepresentations. The detail above cites only a few, to document all would only bore or outrage most readers.

References

Hale, P. (2001) Kangaroo genetics, Impacts of Harvesting. Conservation Biology Program, The Ecology Center, University of Queensland, Brisbane

NPWS (1997) Dubbo District Court transcripts 31 July 1997 NSW

NP&WS v Eichner. NPWS (2001) Kangaroo Management Program. State Printers

Olsen, P. and Braysher, M (2001) Situation Analysis Report: Current state of scientific knowledge on kangaroos in the environment, including ecological and environmental impact and effect of culling. A report for NSW NPWS.

RSPCA (2002) Kangaroo Shooting Code Compliance. RSPCA Australia

Back