Balancing stakeholder interests in kangaroo management – historical perspectives and future prospects

Abstract

Kangaroos are commercially harvested in five mainland states of Australia, with the harvest regulated by state government wildlife management agencies and overseen by the Commonwealth government. Non-commercial culling is permitted, and although most kangaroos have traditionally been taken by the commercial kangaroo harvesting industry, the proportion taken non-commercially has increased in recent years. Management plans that guide the regulation of the harvest support the management objectives of wildlife management agencies and the kangaroo industry, but the plans do not successfully address the objectives of other stakeholders including pastoralists and animal protection groups, which focus on minimising the grazing impacts of kangaroos and animal welfare issues respectively. We reviewed the objectives outlined in the management plans for kangaroos in the Australian rangelands and examined alternative systems for managing natural resources to identify if improvements to management could be made. Current management plans for kangaroos principally use fixed harvest rates that are responsive only to the state of the kangaroo population and not to changes in the environments in which kangaroos live. This type of management is reactive, and opportunities for improving management of the environment are limited. A viable alternative is active adaptive management which focuses on explicit measurement of the response of the natural system to management actions and use of this information to modify interventions to better meet management objectives. Active adaptive management is appropriate when management actions can strongly influence system state but the impacts of management are uncertain. We argue that the management of kangaroos and the environments in which they live would benefit from the adoption of an active adaptive management approach by wildlife management agencies.

Improving Kangaroo Management: A Joint Statement

“…The elephant moratorium demonstrates that the impact of emotive perceptions and runaway media should not prevent proactive science‐based management using a range of techniques to meet considered elephant management objectives (Scholtz 2005; Thomson 2020). Similarly, improved outcomes for kangaroo management must be advanced proactively and adaptively managed according to informed National, State and Regional policies and on‐ground actions by public and private land managers (McLeod & Hacker 2019).…”

The Perils of Being Populous: Control and Conservation of Abundant Kangaroo Species

“…If the value and market for products are modest, as with the commercial kangaroo industry, then there may be an incentive for both the operator (optimal effort, marketing) and the regulator (defray perceptions of harm) to maintain high abundance. This creates conflict over the level of control [178]. (2) The conservation status of the abundant species is of "Least Concern" which may be perceived as "No Concern".…”

Prospects for ecologically and socially sustainable management of total grazing pressure in the southern rangelands of Australia

“…Since the 1970s the commercial kangaroo industry has been the primary means of kangaroo population control (McLeod and Hacker 2019). This is regulated in each State by the relevant wildlife management authorities but with kangaroo management plans approved by the Commonwealth under its export control powers.…”

“…Assuming that a reasonable limit to the duty of care can be defined, there are several avenues for further public investment that could lead to better public outcomes. McLeod and Hacker (2019) argued that current kangaroo management programs take into account only the state of the kangaroo population, satisfying the objectives of wildlife management agencies and the kangaroo industry, but ignore other critical issues such as the condition of natural resources and animal welfare. Wilson and Edwards (2019) have expressed similar concerns in arguing that population targets should be set based on total grazing pressure.…”

“…Wilson and Edwards (2019) have expressed similar concerns in arguing that population targets should be set based on total grazing pressure. McLeod and Hacker (2019) argue that kangaroo management should move to an active adaptive management framework in order to ensure that the objectives of all stakeholders are satisfied as much as possible. Specific kangaroo management objectives would thus be framed on the basis of a range of inputs and could vary in time and space.…”