Op-Ed: Australia’s kangaroo cull- Japanese draw parallels, protestors draw line

An officially sanctioned cull of kangaroos in an area destined for "luxury apartment development" has created a sniping session for Australia’s government. Japan has compared it to whaling, and local protesters aren't happy about it either.

The kangaroos are Eastern Grey kangaroos, not a threatened species. Kangaroos are generally doing well, despite the drought, and occasionally hit very large numbers in the wrong places. That said, the cull isn’t the only way to remove the kangaroos. People are understandably much less than impressed with the idea of slaughtering them for the sake of a developer. There is actually a real issue about protecting native fauna and grassland underpinning the official version of the cull, but that’s been drowned out in the surge of interest. The Daily Telegraph: “Tokyo Broadcasting System reporter Hiroki Iijima said Japanese people would regard the kangaroo cull as hypocritical.

"It's a sad thing. Kangaroos are Australia's national icon, and 400 kangaroos are going to be killed by the Government,'' he said.

The cull of Australia's national emblem, which has been supported by Environment Minister Peter Garrett, has been approved to protect native grassland in the ACT. (Australian Capital Territory, around Canberra. The area involved is the suburb of Belconnen.)

Some opponents of the cull, however, insist it is really about making the land available for a luxury property development.” It’s a bit unfair to target Garrett, who’s a long time environmentalist, as well as being Midnight Oil’s singer, and a frequent activist on environmental issues, both in his music and in public life. There are a few environmental issues worthy of note: 1. The Eastern Grey is a longstanding local species in that area, very well adapted, but suburbia is encroaching. 2. Kangaroos are capable of overgrazing an area, and doing themselves some damage in the process. They can also damage an environment for other animals and plants which are endangered. 3. Kangaroos do not do well in developed areas. There’s a regular supply of traffic accidents, and crippled people and animals. It is a major consideration in land management and environmental planning. The Japanese commentary drawing a comparison with whaling is long on verbiage and short on substance. All big whales are just barely back from the brink of actual extinction. The big kangaroo species have never been threatened like that. Historically, they have occasionally reached plague proportions, which is one thing nobody could say about whales of any species. Garrett’s been getting flak from locals, too, accusing him of hypocrisy: “Former Neighbours star Fiona Corke, who travelled from Melbourne to join yesterday's protest, said Mr Garrett was also being hypocritical in his commitment to protecting whales but not kangaroos. "Kangaroos are a protected species under the 1975 Wildlife Act,'' she said. "It is hypocritical that Peter Garrett is running an anti-whaling campaign, and yet is allowing hundreds of kangaroos to be killed to make room for a housing development.'' Unfortunately, that’s not the correct legislation. I checked the Wildlife Act 1975 (It’s current Victorian legislation, not ACT, and the Federal Wildlife Act 1975 has been repealed), and the declared threatened species, and only got the legislative powers for the Act, and only two relatively obscure species of kangaroo actually declared threatened species. The Eastern Grey kangaroo is one of the big species of kangaroo, which covers most of south eastern Australia. It’s never been declared endangered throughout its range, as far as I know. Their range, incidentally, is about the size of France, or a bit bigger. But the local ACT roos will definitely be in danger, if they find themselves part of a large, growing, city. The cull is repugnant, on principle. Nobody’s claiming to like it, and nor is Garrett, who's said it's necessary for environmental protection. One alternative would be simple removal. They could be sedated, and just moved elsewhere. There's no comment on the luxury apartments, no confirmation even of their existence, although development is big business in the ACT and southeast. The lack of information on the subject is rather strange, because there's a raft of legislation requiring notification of development. It really isn't a secret, even before approval. It's also strange because development is actually bound by environmental planning, not the other way around. Few local politicians would happily get into this sort of trouble on the basis of a non-existent development. The sheer number of approving authorities running for cover would be an indication of whether that's true or not. So far, not a squeak.