hercock 2004

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hercock-2004 1/15

The Environmentalist, 24, 73–86, 2004 2005 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

The Wild Kangaroo Industry:Developing the Potential for Sustainability

MARION HERCOCK ∗

Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences M004, Discipline of Geography,

University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009

Summary. Wildlife resources the world over have long been subject to harvest and management. As wildlife

uses have grown, so too have the need and desire to ensure their sustainability.

This new context of sustainability presents opportunities to merge ecological, economic and social elements

to foster development. This paper presents the management and harvesting of wild kangaroos as an example of

the potentially sustainable use of a natural resource. Some comparisons are drawn between the use of other wild

living resources, deer in Europe and crayfish in Western Australia. However, sustainability of kangaroo species

and the industry is not just a matter of market economics and ecology, it must also be socially sustainable. The

public policy instrument of a statutory advisory board with a marketing function is proposed in order to integrate

the cultural and social aspects of kangaroo management with the economic and ecological aspects. Through such

integration, full sustainability of a wild resource then might be achieved.

Keywords: advisory board, kangaroos, kangaroo products, public policy, sustainability, wild resources

1. Introduction

The past economic and cultural significance of the

kangaroo for the Aboriginal people of pre-European

Australia is well documented (see Strehlow, 1947,

pp. 140–141; Thomson, 1949). Both as a valuable re-

source and a totem, species of kangaroo and wallaby

have been an integral part of the economy and cul-

ture of traditional Aboriginal Australians. Although

that relationship may remain important to some Abo-

rigines, a new relationship between other peoples and

the macropods has developed and has resulted in aglobal export industry, the kangaroo products indus-

try. The products include the leather, pelts and meat

of the largest and most prolific species of kangaroo.

The harvesting of wild kangaroos and the con-

sumption of kangaroo products is presented as an ex-

ample of the potential to develop an economically and

ecologically sustainable use of a wild resource. How-

∗ Address for correspondence: PO Box 1410, East Victoria Park,

Western Australia 6981, e-mail: [email protected]

ever, kangaroo products are not acceptable to many

people, both in Australia and overseas. That lack of

social acceptability is a barrier to achieving the fully

sustainable use of the resource, as it affects commer-

cial viability and the conservation of nature and re-

sources.

The sustainable use of natural resources is the sub-

ject of an extensive literature in which public pol-

icy, economics and environmental management are of-

ten discussed together. Examples of such scholarship

can have more general and universal scope, such as

the work of environmental economists Tisdell (1991)and Hussen (2000) who discuss methods of economic

analysis and link human behaviour to public policy

and policy outcomes. Works that are regional or place

specific, but with global applications, include Tisdell’s

(1999) discussion of Asian examples of linkages be-

tween sustainable development and conservation; and

Brown’s (2002) examination of attempts to integrate

biodiversity and its conservation with social and eco-

nomic development in Brazilian Amazonia and the

Caribbean.

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


74 Hercock

That integrated approach is also taken by Mercer

(2000), and Yencken and Wilkinson (2001) in their

discussions about sustainable natural resource man-agement in Australia. In reviewing the economic and

ideological basis to natural resource management is-

sues in Australia, Mercer (2000) links society, culture

and politics to resource use and sustainability. The ar-

gument that environmental conservation and sustain-

able development are connected supports Yencken and

Wilkinson’s (2001, p. 9) view that there are four pil-

lars of sustainability: social, cultural, economic and

ecological. They see social sustainability as the con-

tinuing capacity of a society to provide for the well-

being of its citizens in a fair and equitable way. The

tests of social sustainability include adequate income,good health, housing, opportunity to work and edu-

cation; and link directly to culture—beliefs, concep-

tual knowledge and the behaviour of a society in its

relationship with the environment. Yet, if cultural and

social change towards more sustainable uses of the en-

vironment is to occur, it is best done through existing

social structures. Although the present paper is re-

stricted to a discussion of the social aspects of accept-

ability of the wild kangaroo industry, it does show the

how a particular structure could be adapted for sus-

tainable resource use. The material presented offers

researchers the scope to examine the equity aspects of

sustainability in regard to the employment opportuni-

ties the industry offers people in remote indigenous

communities and rural Australia.

Although specific technical material has been writ-

ten about the management of the Australian pastoral

rangelands in which kangaroos are found, literature

for a wider readership is perhaps of more use to policy

framers and decision-makers. One example is Lav-

ery’s (1985) collection of essays, in which he seeks

to explain the rationale for the kangaroo harvest, the

surge in kangaroo populations, and the economic, con-

servation and social issues arising from competition

between sheep and wild kangaroos for pasture. Lav-ery’s intention to provide material for closer collabo-

ration between the conservation authority and the rural

sector remains pertinent.

Ideas and questions about the economic use of na-

tive wildlife around the globe have been raised by

McNeely (1988) for the World Conservation Union

(IUCN). Likewise, the hunting of large mammals is

discussed by Cumming (1989), in a chapter on com-

mercial hunting in Zimbabwe, and Mattson (1990)

in a discussion about the economics of hunting in

Sweden. That and others literature is examined by

Choquenot et al. (1998) in reference to a wider range

of wildlife species. Related to this discourse, is thediscussion of the ethical aspects of the consump-

tion of Australian wildlife by Shepherd and Caugh-

ley (1987), Preuss and Rogers (1995), and Choquenot

et al. (1998). Although those authors have also ex-

amined the question of social acceptability of kanga-

roo products there is scope to build on their proposals,

and those of Braddick (2002), with reference to public

policy instruments.

Given the interest in the economic use of wildlife

and the search to achieve sustainability, the present

paper presents an integrated approach to the manage-

ment of a wild Australian resource. Yencken andWilkinson’s (2001) concept that social and cultural

sustainability are integral parts of, and necessary for,

sustainable development, underlie the following dis-

cussion.

The environment for a potentially sustainable in-

dustry has been created by two main elements. The

first element is commercial and regulatory, and the

second is ecological. Analyses of the economic en-

vironment and ecological dynamics are followed by a

discussion about the problem of a lack of cultural ac-

ceptability of kangaroo products. Contrasts and com-

parisons are drawn between the use of other wild ani-

mal resources, red deer (Cervus elaphus) in the United

Kingdom and crayfish, the western rock lobster (Pan-

ulirus cynus) in Western Australia. Those industries

are seen to offer examples for developing the poten-

tial for sustainability.

In conclusion, I propose that this cultural and so-

cial inclusion could be enhanced through the creation

of a statutory advisory and marketing board to inte-

grate the research and development activities already

being carried out within rural, nature conservation and

agriculture agencies. Public marketing functions are

unlikely to compromise the existing conservation and

regulatory measures to which the industry conforms.Institutionalisation could further consolidate the envi-

ronment for the development of a sustainable industry.

2. Kangaroos and wallabies

For the purposes of this discussion, the general term

‘kangaroo’ refers to those wild species of kangaroo

and wallaby that are harvested for commercial pur-

poses and direct personal consumption. ‘Harvesting’

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


The Wild Kangaroo Industry 75

is the term used by government agencies and the in-

dustry, and “involves the removal of animals that are

living in a wild population,. . .

for direct use” (ENRCVictoria, 2000, p. 92). Because there is a degree of un-

certainty in supply owing to the influence of seasonal

conditions on wild animal populations, the term ‘har-

vesting’ also implies a managed gathering of a natural

resource with minimal inputs. In contrast, ‘farming’

of captive domesticated stock, suggests greater inputs

of land, labour and capital in order to increase cer-

tainty and to achieve abundance.

Kangaroos range widely throughout Australia, be-

ing found in almost all habitats. In terms of num-

bers of species and numbers of individual animals, the

Macropodidae are considered to be among the mostdiverse and successful of the herbivorous marsupials

(Strahan, 1983).

The national harvest is made up predominately of

the largest and most populous kangaroo species: the

red ( Macropus rufus), the eastern grey ( M. giganteus),

the western grey ( M. fuliginosus) and the euro ( M. ro-

bustus). Some smaller species, common throughout

the eastern states and Tasmania, are also harvested,

but to a much lesser extent.

The red kangaroo, common throughout the in-

land pastoral rangelands, dominates the harvest. The

rangelands occupy nearly three quarters of Australia,

being the arid and semi-arid lands and some high rain-fall areas north of the Tropic of Capricorn (Fig. 1).

This vast area is vegetated with native grasses, shrubs

and woodland trees. Landuses include the pastoral

sheep and cattle industry, mining, tourism, nature

conservation, military training, indigenous activities,

and the provision of 99% of the commercial kanga-roo harvest (ANZECC and ARMCANZ Joint Work-

ing Group, 1996, p. 6; Grigg and Pople, 2001).

The adaptation of the larger macropods to grasses

and fibrous plant food resulted in complex ecologi-

cal relationships that were further adapted in response

to millennia of Aboriginal burning of the rangelands

(Strahan, 1983). This highly evolved set of relations

between indigenous people, kangaroos and the range-

lands was disrupted and radically altered with the de-

velopment of the pastoral sheep and cattle industry in

the mid-nineteenth century. The installation of subter-

ranean borewells, wind driven water pumps and watertroughs to create permanent water sources for sheep

and cattle encouraged the eastern grey, western grey,

and red kangaroo to proliferate (Poole, 1983). As a re-

sult of ecosystem modification, there has been an up-

surge in the size of the populations of the larger kanga-

roos. Removal of the native predator, the dingo (Canis

familiaris dingo), has also contributed to the increase

in numbers. Likewise, vegetation change has affected

kangaroos. Some larger species found in agricultural

areas benefited from the removal of forest trees, as

more grass could grow in an open landscape. In con-

trast, smaller species of kangaroo, such as the bridled

nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata), were morevulnerable to habitat disturbance and the introduction

of exotic predators like the European red fox (Vulpes

vulpes) (Gordon, 1983).

Figure 1. Location of the Australian rangelands and the distribution of the red kangaroo ( Macropus rufus). Sources: Strahan (1991, p. 141)

ANZECC and ARMCANZ (1996).

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


76 Hercock

Figure 2. Annual quantity of kangaroo meat and skin exports for the period 1960–1961 to 1985–1986. Source: ABS data cited in ANPWS

(1988, p. 37).

3. The Kangaroo Industry—History and

Management

The kangaroo industry consists of professional li-

censed shooters, meat merchants, canners (mostly in

the pet food market), tanners and fur processors, man-

ufacturers, and vendors of skin products (Kirkpatrick

and Amos, 1985, p. 94). The components of themodern industry date from the mid-nineteenth century

when the expansion of agriculture led to competition

between introduced grazing animals and native kanga-

roos for pasture. As a result, the perception of kanga-

rooschanged. From being regarded as a useful domes-

tic resource, kangaroos came to seen more as a pest to

be controlled. Yet, outside Australia, kangaroo meat,

skins and leather were valued and, in the course of

a hundred years an export industry slowly developed.

By the 1950s over 450,000 skins were harvested annu-

ally and, meat was processed for pet food on a quota

basis. In the 1960s skins and leather were used in thelocal fashion industry, but the anti-fur lobby stopped

this use in the following decade. For a brief period

from 1955 to 1969, meat was exported for human con-

sumption as ‘game meat’. The quantity of meat and

skins exported for the period 1960/1961 to 1985/1986

are shown at Fig. 2. The importing countries closed

the trade because of contamination by plant matter

and soil, and salmonella infection, brought about by

poor standards of processing (Shepherd and Caughley,

1987, p. 209).

In 1972, the import of kangaroo products was

banned by the USA in response to subjective claims

that large kangaroos were in danger of extinction as

a result of exploitation (ENRC Victoria, 2000). This

perception belied the population figures during the

1970s. For example, in 1975, the population of red

kangaroos in the 496,000 km2 plains area of New

South Wales was estimated at two million red kanga-roos. Of those numbers, only 2.3%, that is, 48,000 an-

imals, were licensed for harvesting under the harvest

quota (Sharman, 1983). The species-specific quota is

the maximum number of kangaroos permitted to be

harvested from the wild in a delineated area, and is

generally set at 10–20% of the estimated population.

This figure is calculated annually on the basis of pop-

ulation, seasonal conditions and other ecological fac-

tors. The harvest is monitored and controlled through

the issue and use of tags on every kangaroo killed by

professional licensed kangaroo shooters (Grigg and

Pople, 2001, p. 411). In 1977, eastern grey kangaroosnumbered 1,500,000 in New South Wales and, despite

an annual harvest rate of 4%, had increased by 13%

since 1975 (Poole, 1983). Twenty years later, in re-

flection of further increases in the numbers of eastern

grey kangaroos in New South Wales, the state quota

was set at 440,000 for the year 1997 (Environment

Australia, 2003). The national population trends for

all harvestable kangaroo species are shown in Fig. 3.

The kangaroo industry has been controlled by leg-

islation since the 1971 publication of the federal gov-

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004



Figure 3. Total national population of kangaroos, quota and har-

vest figures 1981–1997. Source: Pople and Grigg (1999).

ernment’s report: Conservation and Exploitation of

Kangaroos. The recommendations of that document

have influenced public policy for the last 30 years,

and during that period several revisions and updates

have been made to policy documents (ANPWS, 1988;

ANPWS, 1992; Pople and Grigg, 1999). As a re-sult of the report, control of harvesting rests with

state governments. The management of the harvest

includes the setting of the quota limits, the resting

of areas from harvesting as necessary, the tagging of

meat and hides, the issuing of licenses and the pay-

ment of royalties (ENRC Victoria, 2000, p. 113). The

most recent federal conservation agency review of the

commercial harvesting of kangaroos not only includes

the latest scientific data on kangaroo ecology and the

harvest, but also outlines the land degradation and

sustainable use contexts in which governments ap-

prove and regulate annual harvests (Pople and Grigg,1999). Land degradation is one of Australia’s seri-

ous environmental problems, which, in some cases,

is being dealt with by change in land use in order

to achieve a more sustainable use of the resource.

The inclusion of those contexts follows from the na-

tional commitment to Ecologically Sustainable Devel-

opment (ANPWS, 1992, p. 249).

Perhaps the most significant changes over time

have been in the public perceptions of the kangaroo.

As kangaroos were seen as an agricultural pest to be

culled in order to reduce damage to pasture, their meat

came to be regarded as little better than pet food, and

their commercial potential and worth were graduallyundervalued in Australia. However, during the 1980s,

the value of kangaroo products began to be recog-

nised. A small domestic market for kangaroo meat

for the table started in 1980 in South Australia and, in

the following decade, restaurants in the Barossa Val-

ley (a location known for the production of wines and

gourmet foods) began to serve the meat (Shepherd and

Caughley, 1987, p. 209). Meat for human consump-

tion has been available in South Australia for over ten

years, and more recently in Western Australia. In con-

trast, in the state of Victoria, where the commercial

harvesting of kangaroos is not permitted, culled ani-mals are not used for meat or leather (ENRC Victoria,

2000, p. 115).

Since 1849, when skins were exported from West-

ern Australia for boots and shoes, the leather has had

a reputation for suppleness, lightness and strength

(ANPWS, 1988, p. 36). As a consequence, the fine-

leather industry in the United States, Japan and Eu-

rope, has imported skins for manufacture into high

quality shoes and handbags (Kirkpatrick and Amos,

1985, p. 87). Ironically, many Australians are unaware

that imported leather shoes and sports boots are often

made of kangaroo skin.The 1998 report of the Senate Committee investi-

gating the commercial use of native wildlife showed

that during the period between 1985 and 1995, the

value of kangaroo products grew at an annual rate

of 5%. The value of the industry in 1995 was esti-

mated at $240 million, a figure derived from an annual

commercial harvest of 3.7 million kangaroos (average

$64.87 per kangaroo). In comparison, the approxi-

mately 47 million cattle and sheep slaughtered in Aus-

tralia each year were valued just over $5 billion (av-

erage $106.38 per beast) in 1997–1998 (ENRC Victo-

ria, 2000, p. 116). This figure does not account for thehigh capital and environmental costs of the production

and marketing of sheep and cattle, and the differences

in weight and dollar value between the two different

species of domestic animal. An average sized cow

weighs about 450 kg whereas an average sized ewe

weighs around 40 kg, and a heavy kangaroo, 45 kg.

The inclusion of those costs would show the high rel-

ative earning capacity of kangaroos.

The fears raised by Shepherd and Caughley (1987)

about the threat to conservation posed by uncertainty

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


78 Hercock

and fluctuations in the market for kangaroo products

are discussed in the following section.

4. Economic and ecological sustainability—

commerce, trade and regulation

4.1. Regulations and controls

In the late 1980s a primary concern of Shepherd and

Caughley (1987) was that the discrepancy between the

economics of exploitation and the ecology of kanga-

roos could result in over-harvesting. Their argument

was based on the assumption that the harvesting in-

dustry at that time was not regulated by the need to

conserve the resource, but by the needs of individualsand firms to make a profit in order to survive com-

mercially. As the discussion about current regulation

of the kangaroo harvest shows, nature conservation,

rather than business survival, dominates policy and

management. Much of this policy was developed inresponse to the work of Commonwealth Science and

Industry Research Organisation (CSIRO) ecologists,

and other scientists. See Caughley et al. (1987) for a

comprehensive discussion of kangaroo ecology, man-

agement, and their relationship with the pastoral in-

dustry.

Shepherd and Caughley (1987) assumed that an in-dustry with a relatively low capital input, such as the

kangaroo industry, is concerned with making a quick

profit. For most firms the need to make a profit is

a short-term commercial reality, but profit is not a

matter of economics as such. In the broader busi-

ness context, firms are also concerned with market

share, growth and business longevity, and hence also,the stability and sustainability of the economic envi-

ronment. A stable and sustainable environment con-

tributes to the welfare of an industry as a whole, as

well as to the individual firms that make up an indus-

try.

In the absence of regulation the individual need tomake a living can result in pressure on a biotic re-

source, to the point of threatening the population. The

example of over-exploitation in some fisheries, such

as the North Sea herring (Clupea harengus), illus-

trates the validity of Shepherd and Caughley’s (1987)

concerns. In contrast, the Western Australian lob-

ster fishery exemplifies the management of a livingresource in order to ensure that the resource and the

associated industry remain ecologically and econom-

ically sustainable. This fishery was one of the first

fisheries in the world to be accredited by the Marine

Stewardship Council as a ‘sustainable well-managed

fishery’ (Donohue, 2000). It is comparable with thekangaroo industry, as both harvest a living natural

resource from the wild for export, and raise similar

concerns among conservationists. A typical concern

is the fear of high market demand determining sup-

ply, with suppliers exhausting a resource in order to

meet that demand. However, in accordance with reg-

ulations, changes in population and ecological condi-

tions, rather than demand, determine the fluctuating

annual quotas for crayfish and for kangaroos. The

crayfish or western rock lobster, a crustacean, is one

of the most economically significant animals in West-

ern Australia. Years of heavy fishing by commercialand recreational fishers led to a joint policy response

from the state government, the industry and scientists

in the 1990s. The Fish Resources Management Act

1994 (WA) now provides for the appointment of a

‘Rock Lobster Advisory Committee’ to identify issues

that affect crayfishing, and to advise the State Gov-

ernment minister for fisheries. The committee con-

sists of representatives appointed by the Minister for

Fisheries; and appointees include commercial cray-

fishers, a recreational crayfisher and an independent

expert (Goverment of WA, 1994, p. 29). Policy is im-

plemented through a combination of legislation, insti-

tutions, enforcement of regulations and the issuing of

licenses (Fisheries Department of WA, 1995). These

instruments, together with the financial support and

collective co-operation of commercial crayfishers in

following regulations, appear to ensure the sustainable

use of the resource. In 2000, the State Parliamen-

tary Committee concerned with the implementation

of policies for Ecologically Sustainable Development

concluded that the fishery is being managed according

to the principles of ESD (Donohue, 2000).

At the national level, the over-exploitation of wild

biotic resources is also prevented by the Australian

Commonwealth Government’s Environment Protec-tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This

legislation requires that the export of kangaroo meat

and skins is only permitted if animals have been killed

under the state management programme and quota ap-

proved by the Commonwealth minister for nature con-

servation. In addition, the federal agencies for quar-

antine and customs oversee the export of products and

certify meat as either being for human consumption or

pet food before it leaves the country (ANPWS, 1988).

These measures ensure that the unhygienic and inade-

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004



Figure 4. National quotas and kills 1980–2003. Source: Environment Australia (2003).

quate processing of meat which occurred in the 1950s

and 1960s is not repeated. The Western Australian

state conservation agency scientist involved with the

monitoringof kangaroo populations, confirmed the ef-

fectiveness of these procedures and controls, and re-

ferred to the quota and kill data presented in Fig. 4

(Mawson, 2002). This graph clearly shows that over

the last 20 years, the harvest falls well below the legal

annual quota of 10–15% of the harvestable popula-tion.

The regulatory measures appear to be effective in

creating a sustainable industry and fulfil the analysts’

provision

“that if the harvesting of a renewable resource is

to continue indefinitely, then it requires the im-

position of a central mechanism that is totally

independent of the economics of the industry

harvesting that resource and only mildly sym-

pathetic to its short-term economic problems”

(Shepherd and Caughley, 1987, p. 216).

4.2. Trade and the market

Although regulation moderates micro-economic and

market pressures on the resource, the market itself

must be receptive to kangaroo products. The need

for firmer and less limited markets was expressed by

Shepherd and Caughley (1987), perhaps with the view

that a more regular and a larger market would create

a more stable economic environment. They also saw

a problem in market forces being out of phase with

culling. Thus, fluctuations in demand mean that the

skins and meat of the animals killed do not always

have a market or, cannot satisfy the market. Their

assessment was based on the past experiences of the

domestic market and the short-lived game meat ex-

port trade. However, over the last decade the market,

in particular the overseas meat market, has changed.

At the same time, the industry itself has matured intoa more sophisticated entity, with greater commercial

and economic acumen than in the 1970s. The cre-

ation of a Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia

(KIAA) in 1964 has contributed to that development.

KIAA was formed to promote the interests of the in-

dustry, with a liaison role between government and in-

dustry. It also acts to inform the public on a range

of matters, including animal welfare issues, licensing,

the quota system, population monitoring and recipes

(see www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au).

Domestic efforts in product research and more so-

phisticated marketing have contributed to increasingthe certainty of the export market. The growth of ex-

ports since 1988 is illustrated by Figs. 5 and 6. When

read with Fig. 2, despite some changes in the measures

used, the official data show patterns in past and recent

exports over 40 years.

For the year 2000, a total of 4,841,730 kg of

meat (4,320,350 kg for human consumption and

521,380 kg unfit for human consumption) was export-

ed—this amount, excluding the domestic market, was

derived from less than half the harvest, approximately

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


80 Hercock

Figure 5. Kangaroo skin exports and value (Aust.$) 1988/1989 to 2001/2002. Source: ABS (2003).

Figure 6. Annual quantity of kangaroo meat exported for the period 1988/1989 to 2001/2002. Source: ABS (2003). Notes: the ABS advise

that data earlier than 1988/1989 is recorded under a different system to the one used at present, and the data are held in a different format. This

older data are harder to retrieve and beyond the budget of this research.

1,235,881 kangaroos. This figure is based on an esti-

mate of 45% of the total harvest, because more than

half the kill is used for skins alone (Grigg and Pople,

2001, p. 415). The 2000 harvest was 49% of the year’s

quota of 5,516,225 animals (see Fig. 4), or about 4.9%

of the total national population of the commercially

harvestable species. The annual quota varies in re-

sponse to seasonal and population fluctuations. As

shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the legal annual quota of

10–15% of the harvestable population has rarely been

taken in full.

Global forces related to culture, health and trade

have also played a major role in changing the char-

acter of the market. One force of change is fashion,

a second is the continued global expansion of mar-

kets; and the third force is the incidence of diseases

which affect hoofed animals and their meat. The dis-

covery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (‘mad

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004



cow disease’) in Britain in 1986, and the identification

of links to a variant of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease in

humans, resulted in restrictions on exports of Britishbeef into the European Union. Partly as a result of re-

duced European consumer confidence in farmed and

lot-fed meat, the interest in wild and chemical free ‘or-

ganic’ meats rose. Although consumer confidence in

farmed beef improved following the introduction of

controls on livestock feeding, meat markets felt the

impact of a British outbreak of the highly infectious

foot and mouth disease in February 2001. The 50%

increase in exports for kangaroo meat, over 1999/2000

and 2000/2001, is seen by the Australian Trade Com-

mission (2002) to reflect the European search for al-

ternative sources of meat (Fig. 6).The most important markets, on the basis of reg-

ularity and amount imported, are shown in Table 1.

The most consistent buyers of kangaroo meat, for the

longest period, are France, Belgium and the Nether-

lands. More recent markets have developed in the for-

mer command economies of eastern Europe.

Although conventional mass-produced agricultural

products still form the greater part of the world mar-

ket, some variation in produce and modes of produc-

tion has occurred. Related, but at the broader struc-

tural level, are movements towards more sustainable

rural economies. These transformations are the sub-

ject of a specialist literature and only touched upon

herein. Examples include Burch et al. (1999); and

Holmes’ (2002) analysis of the transition of the Aus-

tralian rangelands from being a commodity oriented

‘pastoral zone’ to a more amenity oriented region.

The processes of transformation, particularly the

diversification of production and products, and the

evolution of ‘niche markets’, continues to influence

the export of wild commodities. Changes in the global

market involve fashion in food and fibre consumption,

and fashion can have enormous impacts upon local en-

vironments and economies. For example, see Arm-

strong’s (1994) review of the changes to the FalklandIsland ecology of the as a result of the fashion for seal

pelts and oil. Today, the fashion for ‘organic’ foods,

which are perceived as healthy and less damaging to

the environment, has the potential to affect widespread

economies and ecologies.

The growth in the production of organic foods for

domestic and export markets is regarded by Monk

(1999) to have become more significant in the agri-

food systems of the developed economies. His state-

ment that the “growth in volume and activity in the

Table 1. Countries importing kangaroo meat. Ranked in order of

volume of imports over two years July 1999–June 2001

Countries importingkangaroo meat

Ranked in order of volumeof imports over two years

July 1999–June 2001

Russian Federation over 2 million kilograms

South Africa over 1 million kilograms

Netherlands over 500,000 kilograms

France

Belgium–Luxembourg

Korea,

Republic of Germany

Czech Republic 100,000–500,000 kilograms

United States of America

Macau (SAR of China)

AustriaChina (PRC)

Papua New Guinea

Bulgaria

Greece

Hong Kong (SAR of China)

Vietnam 20,000–95,000 kilograms

Reunion

Portugal

Switzerland

Malta

Japan

United Kingdom

Singapore less than 10,000 kilograms

New Zealand

Italy

New Caledonia

Spain

Poland

Cyprus

French Polynesia

Source: ABS (2003).

organic industry is mirrored in the activities of re-

searchers and government bureaucrats” is reflected in

the sponsorship of research into the qualities of kanga-

roo meat and leather by the Rural Industries Researchand Development Corporation, the Kangaroo Indus-

try Association and the CSIRO (for example, CSIRO,

2001; Looney et al., 2002). In view of the link be-

tween organic food production and sustainable pro-

duction, and the insistence on high quality meat in the

developed world, the demand for organic meats of all

kinds is more than likely to become a way of life and

culture, rather than a just a passing fashion. Therefore,

it appears that the global market for kangaroo meat is

potentially sustainable.

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


82 Hercock

4.3. Environment, protection, management and the

harvest

As discussed above, the large kangaroos have prolif-

erated as a result of the alterations to the environment

made by the pastoral industry. Kangaroo populations

have always responded to rainfall and pasture, and

those dynamics tend to regulate numbers within envi-

ronmental limits, and allow for the collection of a fluc-

tuating, but sustainable harvest. Predation by dingoes

and nomadic Aborigines has been replaced with pre-

dation by the commercial industry (Grigg and Pople,

2001).

Apart from protection in national parks, legisla-

tion and other management controls, kangaroo pop-ulations are sustained by local relationships between

climate, ecology and topography, and human activ-

ity. Decisions on the time and length of the har-

vest and the quota are determined by interpretation of

the data obtained from aerial surveillance of kanga-

roo populations by wildlife managers. These meth-

ods have been developed over 30 years of monitoring

by government nature conservation agencies through-

out the Australian states. In 2002 the population of

commercially harvestable kangaroos was estimated at

58.6 million animals (Grigg and Pople, 2001). This

figure, together with the population data shown at

Fig. 3, which shows the rise and fall in quota levels

in response to population changes, reflects the effec-

tiveness of management and suggests that the industry

is ecologically sustainable.

The official reports and refereed journal articles by

researchers including the late Graeme Caughley, ecol-

ogist and chief research scientist at the CSIRO, and

the work of Anthony Pople on the spatial and tem-

poral dynamics of kangaroo populations, have pro-

vided an analytical foundation for policy for nearly

twenty years. The volume of studies on kangaroo

ecology, population dynamics, genetic diversity and

ecological relationships that supports the quota deci-sions of the monitoring authorities is too large to be

covered here. The evidence presented in this paper

points to the sustainability of a regulated, managed

harvest of wild kangaroo, which is controlled in re-

sponse to fluctuating populations and environmental

conditions. For a comprehensive coverage of the lit-

erature see Choquenot et al. (1998); Pople and Grigg

(1999); Grigg and Pople (2001).

The material presented so far supports the argu-

ment that the kangaroo industry is potentially ecolog-

ically and economically sustainable. However, on the

basis of Yencken and Wilkinson’s (2001) premise that

social and cultural sustainability are an integral partof, and necessary for, sustainable development, the in-

dustry is not yet fully sustainable. The problem of a

lack of cultural acceptability of kangaroo products is

discussed below.

5. Models of social and cultural sustainability

The global and local perceptions of kangaroos are of-

ten contradictory. To some people, they are over-

grazing pests to be culled, to others they are lovable

wildlife and not to be killed, let alone eaten. The rea-sons for Australians’ attitudes towards kangaroo prod-

ucts, and ways to improve negative attitudes have been

discussed by Choquenot et al. (1998) and Braddick

(2002). The latter author considers that perceptions

inherited from the English are among the inhibitors

to Australian consumption of kangaroo products. She

argues that English culture has influenced Australians

to see kangaroos as wildlife, a pest, or at best, a low-

value source of meat (like the introduced rabbit), but

never as a high-quality food. However, the British cul-

ture of field-sports (fishing and shooting) shows that

wildlife can be seen by some people as a valuable re-

source to be conserved and also managed for human

consumption. That perception is reflected in, and by

bodies such as the British Society for Shooting and

Conservation and the Game Conservancy Trust. The

Trust is a non-government wildlife management or-

ganisation which conducts a range of research into

game and its associated species and habitat, as well

as habitat restoration and conservation for sustainable

harvest (Tapper, 1999, p. 9).

European game mammals, like the red deer, share

some characteristics with Australian kangaroos. Both

have a gourmet reputation, and their flesh is hormone

and chemical free of artificial (although farmed deermay have some additives in their flesh), as well as be-

ing low in fat. When aided by human activity, both

kangaroos and the large cervids surge in numbers; and

deer in some parts of Scotland now exceed the carry-

ing capacity of the land. The increase in red deer is

partly the result of deliberate over-stocking by some

sporting estates in the nineteenth and twentieth cen-

turies. Excessive numbers of both deer and kanga-

roos can have a detrimental effect on flora and wood-

land regeneration by overgrazing, and therefore ani-

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004



mals need to be culled from time to time (Watson,

1989; Tapper, 1999, pp. 117–119). Using the meat

and hides from the cull not only stops the waste of aresource, it also offsets the cost of damage to pasture

and fencing while placing a monetary value on the an-

imals (Shepherd and Caughley, 1987).

The British field sports and game culture exempli-

fies the integration of resource management and ex-

ploitation with habitat and species conservation within

a milieu of recreation and gastronomy. See Vandervell

and Coles (1980); Martin (1990); and Tapper (1999)

for further clarification. This culture is also widely

established in France and Belgium, which are regu-

lar markets for kangaroo products. Cuisine, as part

of culture, is fundamental to the acceptability of wildmeats and other foods. In this regard, the continen-

tal Europeans have long had a tradition of harvest-

ing (but not always sustainably), preparing and serv-

ing game; hence their readiness to accept kangaroo

meat. The cultural legacy of the Silesian Prussian pio-

neers in the Barossa Valley and other German settlers

in South Australia may well have contributed to the

modern trend in Australian gourmet consumption of

kangaroo meat.

In view of the health and fashion interest in wild

foods and fibres, there is scope for expanding the kan-

garoo products market. As a result of these changes

in fashion, and the economic imperative for farmers

to diversify, another wild Australian product, sandal-

wood (Santalum spictatum), is regaining a place in

global markets. The Western Australian sandalwood

industry, once a leading exporter in the nineteenth cen-

tury, is now being ‘revitalised.’ Equally important for

sustainable land use, the sandalwood tree has a role

in maintaining indigenous biodiversity, ecological re-

lationships and rehabilitating degraded lands (Tonts

and Selwood, 2003). The economic and environmen-

tal factors bringing about a revival of the sandalwood

industry also affect the kangaroo industry.

From the examples of deer and crayfish it appearsthat if a wild species is held in high esteem because

of its gastronomic quality, it can have both a cultural

as well as monetary value. The combination of a high

cultural value with a significant economic value has

probably contributed to the development of a more

sustainable crayfish industry. The need to increase the

wider social value and the dollar value of the kanga-

roo has been raised in Attwater’s (1989) bioeconomic

analysis of kangaroo management in the Gascoyne

pastoral region of Western Australia. Similarly, Grigg

and Pople (2001, p. 404) argue for “a sustainable har-

vest of kangaroos, at higher prices, as an alternative

to sheep, presenting wool growers with the opportu-nity to diversify, and redefining the status of kanga-

roos from pest to resource.”

6. Consolidating the ecological, economic and

social elements of sustainability

Nature conservation, rangeland damage mitigation,

product research and development, and the promotion

and marketing of kangaroo products appear to be too

widely fragmented among different organisations to

achieve full sustainability. An advisory body is pre-sented as a means towards the consolidation of eco-

nomic, environmental, cultural and social facets in a

potentially sustainable whole. The population moni-

toring, product testing and development work carried

out by government conservation and research agen-

cies might be better integrated through a common fo-

cus. A statutory kangaroo advisory board, with a mar-

keting function, might bring together diverse activities

and interests, with the common aim of achieving a sus-

tainable kangaroo population and industry. Given that

an industry body and the regulatory structures exist,

the next step towards economic and social maturitywould be the establishment of a government board.

Examples can be found in various government ad-

visory bodies and the agricultural marketing boards

for wheat, lamb, potatoes, dairy products and eggs.

These bodies involve federal and state interests and

representatives, as well as those of business and in-

dustry. In accordance with constitutional powers,

Commonwealth marketing boards are typically con-

cerned with the regulation of exports, whereas state

boards are more interested in resource use and inter-

nal production, and are more dominated by producers

(Spann, 1979, pp. 191–193). As described above, theexport of kangaroo products is controlled by federal

agencies while the harvest is supervised by state agen-

cies, such as the New South Wales National Parks and

Wildlife Service, which has a Kangaroo Management

Advisory Committee. Although this committee is an

ad hoc body established under the National Parks and

Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW), with no marketing role or

function, its membership structure could be adapted

to suit an advisory board with both management and

marketing functions (NPWS, NSW, 2003).

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


84 Hercock

Table 2. A public policy innovation adapting the model of the western Australian potato marketing board for a kangaroo advisory and

marketing board. Source: Department of Agriculture (2002, p. 14)

Function W.A. Potato Marketing Board A kangaroo advisory and marketing board(Department of Agriculture, 2002, p. 14)

Supply management

and control over

production

Regulate the production of potatoes so as to ensure the

supply of the quantities, kinds and qualities preferred by

consumers in the State.

Regulate the harvest of kangaroos so as to maintain

populations of the species over their natural range, and

to mitigate damage caused by population explosions.a

Marketing Take delivery of, and otherwise deal with, potatoes in

accordance with this Act and market potatoes in the

State and elsewhere.

Ensure that the commercial harvest, processing, sale

and export of kangaroo products is conducted within

the appropriate state and federal legislation.a

Register persons who are to be authorised to carry on

business as a commercial producer of potatoes, and

license the area of land to be used in any such business.

Licence persons who are to be authorised to carry on

business as a commercial harvester of kangaroos, and

register the area of land in which the shooter operates. a

Licence persons who are to be authorised to carry on

business as a commercial processor and seller of

kangaroo products, and register the property used in any

such business.a

Promotion and

market development

Encourage and promote the use of potatoes and provide

for the monitoring and, if thought fit, regulation of the

production of potatoes for propagation or for any other

prescribed kind of use.

Promote the industry’s humane and sustainable use of

natural resources.b

Encourage and promote the use of kangaroo products.b

Educate the public in the best methods of kangaroo

meat preparation and cooking.b

Industry

competitiveness

Foster methods of production and adopt methods of

marketing that will enable potatoes grown in the State

to compete in price and quality against potatoes from

alternative sources of supply.

Foster sustainable methods of production, harvesting

and processing. Adopt methods of marketing that will

enable kangaroo products to compete in price and

quality against meat and leather from alternative

sources of supply.

Research and

development

Promote, encourage, fund and arrange for the conduct

of research into matters relating to the production and

marketing of potatoes, and undertake market

development.

Promote, encourage, fund and co-ordinate the research

conducted by diverse agencies and individuals into all

matters relating to harvestable kangaroo species and

kangaroo products. Undertake market development.

Extension Seek and apply knowledge of new and improved

techniques and materials that will assist it to perform its

functions.

Seek and apply knowledge of new and improved

techniques and materials that will assist it to perform its

functions.

a These functions are being performed by state and federal agencies.b These functions are being performed by the Kangaroo Industry Association.

The structure of a state kangaroo advisory board

could perhaps consist of the following representatives

and groups:

• the state nature conservationagency (a conservation

biologist),

• the state agency for agriculture,• the pastoral industry,

• licensed kangaroo shooters,

• commercial processors and exporters, and

• a natural resource economist.

A committee of diverse expertise and interests, with a

strong and dedicated entity to drive the processes of

governance and change, can work. Successful local

examples are the Garden Island Environmental Ad-

visory Committee supported by the Royal Australian

Navy (Hercock, 2002); and the Western Australian

Rock Lobster Advisory Committee.

Policy models with legislation, a marketing or ad-

visory body and regulatory instruments, are also pro-

vided by the NSW Kangaroo Management Advisory

Committee, the Grain Pool and the Potato Market-ing Authority. The authority is a statutory body es-

tablished by the Marketing of Potato Act 1946 (WA),

which sets out its role and functions. Supply man-

agement, marketing, promotion, industry competitive-

ness, research and development and extension are car-

ried out by a Potato Marketing Board (Department of

Agriculture, 2002). Table 2 shows the possibility of

adapting those functions to regulate the kangaroo in-

dustry and promote kangaroo products without com-

promising conservation. The differences between the

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004



farming of a cultivated species and the harvest of wild

species would have to be recognised in any policy in-

novation. Most of these functions are already carriedout by governmentagencies and the kangaroo industry

association. Although many of the tasks could remain

fragmentedin an operational sense, they would be bet-

ter coordinated by a single entity with the central aim

of developing a fully (culturally, socially, economi-

cally and ecologically) sustainable kangaroo industry.

7. Conclusion

The sustainability of wild populations of kangaroos

and the industry rests on the combined ecological

value of kangaroos, their economic and monetaryvalue, and their social value and cultural significance.

Kangaroo products have particular pertinence in a

world seeking sources of protein that are free of her-

bicides, pesticides, and artificial hormones and anti-

biotics; and can be produced without further habitat

fragmentation and ecosystem disruption. There is an

opportunity to increase the harvest to reach, but not

exceed, the quota levels, and this would best be done

through the present scientific monitoring systems and

existing regulations. A statutory advisory board is a

means of managing the harvest and conserving nature

and natural resources while both legitimising and reg-ulating the industry. It presents a step towards realis-

ing the potential for the sustainable use of a wild re-

source.

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Peter Mawson, Department of Conserva-

tion and Land Management, Western Australia, for

information and official sources of data; the staff at

King River Meats for industry sources of reference;

and Jim, a professional kangaroo shooter. I am grate-

ful to the anonymous referees for their thoughtful sug-

gestions and comments.

References

ABS: 2003, ‘Exports of Kangaroo Meat; Exports of Kangaroo Meat

and Wallaby Meat, Unfit for Human Consumption; and Exports

of Raw Hides and Skins of Kangaroo, by Quantity and Value,

from 1988/1989 to 2001/2002,’ Australian Bureau of Statistics,

Canberra.

ANPWS: 1988, ‘Kangaroos in Australia: Conservation Status and

Management,’ Occasional Paper No. 14, Australian National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Commonwealth of Australia, Can-

berra.

ANPWS: 1992, ‘Australia’s Protection and Conservation of Wildlife: Report on the Review of the Wildlife Protection (Reg-

ulations of Exports and Imports) Act 1982 and Regulations,’

Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, AGPS, Can-

berra.

ANZECC and ARMCANZ Joint Working Group: 1996, Draft Na-

tional Strategy for Rangeland Management, National Range-

land Management Working Group, Australian and New Zealand

Environment and Conservation Council with the Agriculture

and Resource Management Council of Australia and New

Zealand, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Armstrong, Patrick H.: 1994, ‘Human Impact on the Falkland Is-

lands Environment,’ Environmentalist 14(3), 215–231.

Attwater, Roger: 1989, ‘The Management of the Red Kangaroo

Macropus rufus in the Gascoyne Catchment: A Bioeconomic

Analysis,’ Honours Dissertation, School of Agriculture, Univer-sity of Western Australia, Crawley.

Australian Trade Commission: 2002, ‘Trade Statistics, Meat and

Livestock Overview,’ www.austrade.gov.au/home site accessed

7 February 2003.

Braddick, Lynda: 2002, ‘Market Place Demand for Kangaroo Meat

Consumption in Western Australia: A Sustainability Issue,’ Ho-

nours Dissertation, BA with Honours in Sustainable Develop-

ment, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia.

Brown, K.: 2002, ‘Innovations for Conservation and Development,’

Geogr. J. 168(1), 6–17.

Burch, David, Goss, Jasper and Lawrence, Geoffrey (eds.): 1999,

Restructuring Global and Regional Agricultures: Transforma-

tion in Australasian Agri-Food Economies and Spaces, Ashgate,

Aldershot, England.

Caughley, G., Shepherd, N. and J. Short (eds.): 1987, Kangaroos,

Their Ecology and Management in the Sheep Rangelands, Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Choquenot, D., Caughley, G. and McLeod, S.: 1998, Scientific,

Economic and Social Issues of Commercial Use of Wild Ani-

mals in Australia, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.

CSIRO: 2001, ‘Roo Industry Kicks New Goals,’ Textile News On-

line, second quarter 2001, CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology,

http://www.tft.csiro.au, site accessed 2 February 2002.

Cumming, D.H.M.: 1989, ‘Commercial and Safari Hunting in Zim-

babwe,’ in R.J. Hudson, K.R. Drew and L.M. Baskin (eds.),

Wildlife Production Systems: Economic Utilisation of Ungu-

lates, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 147–169.

Department of Agriculture: 2002, ‘Legislation Review of Market-

ing of Potatoes Act 1946, Marketing of Potatoes Regulations1989,’ Discussion paper for Industry, Department of Agricul-

ture, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Donohue, Kevin: 2000, ‘Western Rock Lobster Management for

Seasons 2001/2002 and 2003/2003: A Discussion Paper,’ Rock

Lobster Industry Advisory Committee, Fisheries Management

Paper No. 143, Fisheries Western Australia, Perth.

ENRC Victoria: 2000, ‘Inquiry into the Utilisation of Victorian

Native Flora and Fauna,’ Report June 2000, No. 30 Session

1999/2000, Environment and Natural Resources Committee,

Victorian Government Printer, Melbourne.

Environment Australia: 2003, ‘Wild Harvest of Native Species—

Kangaroos, Commercial Harvest in 1991–1997, 1998–2003,’

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


86 Hercock

http://www.ea.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/

kangaroo/yearly.html, site accessed 30 January 2002, 24

December 2003.Fisheries Department of WA: 1995, Fishing for Rock Lobsters

in Western Australia 1995/1996 Season, information brochure,

November 1995, WA Fisheries Department, Perth.

Gordon, G.: 1983, ‘Bridled Nailtail Wallaby,’ in R. Strahan (ed.),

The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mam-

mals, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, p. 205.

Goverment of WA: 1994, Fish Resources Management Act 1994,

State Government Printer of Western Australia, Perth.

Grigg, Gordon C. and Pople, Anthony R.: 2001, ‘Sustainable Use

and Pest Control in Conservation: Kangaroos as a Case Study,’

in John D. Reynolds, Georgina M. Mace, Kent H. Redford and

John G. Robinson (eds.), Conservation of Exploited Species,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 403–423.

Hercock, M.: 2002, ‘Integrating Local Environmental Management

and Federal/State Interests Through Governance: The Case of the Garden Island Environmental Advisory Committee,’ Envi-

ron. Manage. 30, 313–326.

Holmes, John: 2002, ‘Diversity and Change in Australia’s Range-

lands: A Post-Productivist Transition with a Difference?’ T. I.

Brit. Geogr. 27(3), 362–384.

Hussen, A.M.: 2000, Principles of Environmental Economics: Eco-

nomics, Ecology and Public Policy, Routledge, London.

Kirkpatrick, T.H. and Amos, P.J.: 1985, ‘The Kangaroo Indus-

try,’ in H.J. Lavery (ed.), The Kangaroo Keepers, University of

Queensland Press, St Lucia, pp. 75–100.

Lavery, H.J. (ed.): 1985, The Kangaroo Keepers, University of

Queensland Press, St Lucia.

Looney, M., Kyratzis, I., Truong, Y., and Wassenberg, J.: 2002, En-

hancing the Unique Properties of Kangaroo Leather , RIRDC

Publication No.02/105, Rural Industry Research and Develop-ment Corporation, Canberra.

Martin, Brian P.: 1990, The Glorious Grouse: A Natural and Un-

natural History, David & Charles, Newton Abbot, UK.

Mattson, Leif: 1990, ‘Hunting in Sweden: Extent, Economic Values

and Structural Problems,’ Scand. J. Forest Res. 5, 563–573.

Mawson, P.: 2002, personal communication.

McNeely, J.A.: 1988, Economics and Biological Diversity: Devel-

oping and Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological

Resources, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Mercer, David: 2000, “A Question of Balance”: Natural Resources

Conflict Issues in Australia, The Federation Press, Sydney.

Monk, Andy: 1999, ‘The Organic Manifesto: Organic Agricul-

ture in the World Food System,’ in D. Burch, J. Goss and

G. Lawrence (eds.), Restructuring Global and Regional Agri-

cultures: Transformation in Australasian Agri-Food Economies

and Spaces, Ashgate, Aldershot, England, pp. 75–86.

NPWS, NSW: 2003, New South Wales Kangaroo Advisory Com-

mittee, www.npws.nsw.gov.au/wildlife/wildlifemanagement/

kangaroo/KMAC/html

Poole, W.E.: 1983, ‘Eastern Grey Kangaroo,’ in R. Strahan (ed.),

The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mam-

mals, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp. 244–247.Pople, Tony and Grigg, Gordon: 1999, Commercial Harvesting of

Kangaroos in Australia, Environment Australia, Department of

the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Preuss, P. and Rogers, J.: 1995, ‘Consumptive Use of Wildlife:

Conservation or Exploitation?’ in G. Grigg, P. Hale and D. Lun-

ney (eds.), Conservation through Sustainable Use of Wildlife,

Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland,

Brisbane, pp. 69–72.

Sharman, G.B.: 1983, ‘Red Kangaroo,’ in R. Strahan (ed.), The Aus-

tralian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals, Angus

& Robertson, Sydney, pp. 255–257.

Shepherd, N. and Caughley, G.: 1987, ‘Options for Manage-

ment of Kangaroos,’ in G. Caughley, N. Shepherd and J. Short

(eds.), Kangaroos, Their Ecology and Management in the Sheep

Rangelands, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 188–219.

Spann, R.N.: 1979, Government Administration in Australia,

George Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Strahan, R.: 1983, ‘Kangaroos and Their Relatives,’ in R. Stra-

han (ed.), The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian

Mammals, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, pp. 175–176.

Strahan, Ronald: 1991, What Mammal Is That?, North Ryde, New

South Wales, Cornstalk Publishing.

Strehlow, T.G.H.: 1947, Aranda Traditions, Melbourne University

Press, Carlton, Victoria.

Tapper, S. (ed.): 1999, A Question of Balance: Game Animals and

Their Role in the British Countryside, the Game Conservancy

Trust, Fordingbridge, UK.

Thomson, Donald: 1949, Economic Structure and the Ceremonial

Exchange Cycle in Arnhem Land , MacMillan, Melbourne.Tisdell, C.: 1991, Economics of Environmental Conservation. Eco-

nomics for Environmental and Ecological Management , Vol. 1,

Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Tisdell, C.: 1999, Biodiversity, Conservation and Sustainable De-

velopment: Principles and Practices with Asian Examples , Ed-

ward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Tonts, Matthew and Selwood, John: 2003, ‘Niche Markets, Re-

gional Diversification and the Reinvention of Western Aus-

tralia’s Sandalwood Industry,’ Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Ge. 94(5),

564–575.

Vandervell, Anthony and Coles, Charles: 1980, Game and the Eng-

lish Landscape: The Influence of the Chase on Sporting Art and

Scenery, Viking, New York.

Yencken, David and Wilkinson, Debra: 2001, Resetting the Com-

pass: Australia’s Journey Towards Sustainability, CSIRO Pub-lishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Watson, D.: 1989, ‘Red Deer in Scotland: A Resource Out of Con-

trol,’ Ecos 10(3), 28–34.

8/6/2019 Hercock 2004


Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

hercock 2004

Documents