The welfare ethics of the commercial killing of free-ranging kangaroos: An evaluation of the benefits and costs of the industry

Abstract

The commercial killing of kangaroos provides multiple benefits to society, but also causes both deliberate and unintended harms to kangaroos. The ethics of the kangaroo industry is assessed in terms of whether the assumed benefits justify the welfare costs. An analysis of the stated benefits indicates that killing for damage mitigation is beneficial mainly during drought and not at current levels; that there is a commercial value, although considerably lower than previously estimated, and that demonstrable environmental benefits from commercial killing of kangaroos are lacking; and that the commercial kill may ameliorate the suffering of kangaroos during drought. Welfare practices are very difficult to assess and regulate due to the size and remote nature of the industry. A combination of empirical data on welfare outcomes and inferences drawn from behavioural and reproductive knowledge of the commercially killed species are utilised to assess harm. The welfare costs include deliberate and indirect harm to dependent young (a by-product of the commercial kill), and a number of unintended harms to adult kangaroos, including increased mortality during drought, inhumane killing of a portion of adult kangaroos, and a disruption of social stability and the evolutionary potential of individuals. Furthermore, a substan- tial gap exists between the intended welfare standards of the code of practice governing the kangaroo industry and the welfare outcomes for both dependent young and adult kangaroos. We found that, on balance, the benefits are lower than expected and the welfare costs are likely to be considerably higher than acceptable. More research, particularly at the point of kill, is necessary to verify and assess the extent of harms. A number of improvements are suggested to the code of practice to improve welfare outcomes

Full text

1
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead,
Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
www.ufaw.org.uk
Animal Welfare 2014, 23: 1-10
ISSN 0962-7286
doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.001
The welfare ethics of the commercial killing of free-ranging kangaroos:
an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the industry
D Ben-Ami*†, K Boom†, L Boronyak†, C Townend†, D Ramp‡, D Croft‡and M Bekoff§
†THINKK, The Think Tank for Kangaroos, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, Level 11, Building 10,
235 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia
‡School of the Environment, University of Technology, PO Box 123, Broadway 2007, NSW, Australia
§Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, USA
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: dror.ben-ami@isf.uts.edu.au
Abstract
The commercial killing of kangaroos provides multiple benefits to society, but also causes both deliberate and unintended harms to
kangaroos. The ethics of the kangaroo industry is assessed in terms of whether the assumed benefits justify the welfare costs. An
analysis of the stated benefits indicates that killing for damage mitigation is beneficial mainly during drought and not at current levels;
that there is a commercial value, although considerably lower than previously estimated, and that demonstrable environmental benefits
from commercial killing of kangaroos are lacking; and that the commercial kill may ameliorate the suffering of kangaroos during
drought. Welfare practices are very difficult to assess and regulate due to the size and remote nature of the industry. A combination
of empirical data on welfare outcomes and inferences drawn from behavioural and reproductive knowledge of the commercially killed
species are utilised to assess harm. The welfare costs include deliberate and indirect harm to dependent young (a by-product of the
commercial kill), and a number of unintended harms to adult kangaroos, including increased mortality during drought, inhumane killing
of a portion of adult kangaroos, and a disruption of social stability and the evolutionary potential of individuals. Furthermore, a substan-
tial gap exists between the intended welfare standards of the code of practice governing the kangaroo industry and the welfare
outcomes for both dependent young and adult kangaroos. We found that, on balance, the benefits are lower than expected and the
welfare costs are likely to be considerably higher than acceptable. More research, particularly at the point of kill, is necessary to verify
and assess the extent of harms. A number of improvements are suggested to the code of practice to improve welfare outcomes.
Keywords:animal welfare, commercial, ethics, harvest, industry, kangaroo
Introduction
Considerable interest has arisen regarding the impact of
humans on wild animal welfare (Littin & Mellor 2005;
Bekoff 2010; Fraser 2010) including wildlife considered
pests (Littin 2010; Mathews 2010) or resources (Gill 2000;
Boom & Ben-Ami 2011). High profile examples, such as
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in the US
(Messmer et al 1997) and Canadian harp seals
(Phoca groenlandica) (Daoust et al 2002) illustrate that
community opposition to the killing of wildlife, whether it
is perceived as pest or resource, can be strong. Ethical
frameworks for assessing human impacts on animal welfare
must expand to incorporate a broader range of possible
harms to free-living animals (Fraser & MacRae 2011).
Furthermore, when determining whether a particular human
activity that causes animal suffering is necessary, it has been
argued that both the purpose and means of the activity
should be legitimate (Sankoff & Steven 2009). It is
necessary for there to be some reason for the relevant
activity, and that reason must conform to societal values
(Francione 2000; Weldon 2008). Even if there is a legiti-
mate purpose to cause harm to animals, the suffering
imposed by such activity may not be justified by the means
utilised, particularly if there are less harmful procedures
available at a comparable cost (Sankoff & Steven 2009).
Over the past 30 years in Australia, an annual average of
approximately three million free-ranging kangaroos are
commercially killed and processed annually by the kangaroo
industry (not including young which are collateral deaths).
They are killed in prescribed numbers ostensibly to manage
their impacts on agricultural production, and for meat for
human consumption and pet meat, and for hides and other
products (Lunney 2010; Boom et al 2012). In 1998, the latest
Australian congressional review of the use of wildlife,
including the commercial killing of kangaroos, determined
that although the commercial industry effectively “institu-
tionalised the suffering of kangaroos”, the commercial killing
is necessary due to the impact of kangaroos on farming
income (Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Committee 1998). However, accumulating data do not show
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Science in the Service of Animal Welfare

2 Ben-Ami et al
a correlation between the industry and agricultural damage
mitigation outcomes and, in some quarters, the welfare costs
are perceived to be too high (Boom & Ben-Ami 2011).
The kangaroo industry targets four of the largest species
of kangaroo which are killed on the mainland
(excluding Tasmania): red kangaroo (Macropus rufus),
eastern grey kangaroo (M. giganteus), western grey
kangaroo (M. fuliginosus) and common wallaroo (M.
robustus). Their ranges include many parts of
Australia’s arid and semi-arid sheep rangelands
occupying about 40% of the continent (Grigg 2002). In
Tas man ia, th e c omme rcia l k ill is prim aril y for ski ns and
includes Bennett’s wallaby (M. rufogriseus) and
Tas man ian pad emel on (Thylogale billardierii). Free-
ranging wild kangaroos are shot by licensed shooters
and partially eviscerated in the field. Carcases are then
brought to cold storage containers (chillers) for holding
until they are sent to meat processing plants. Although
management programmes are set by individual states,
the conditions set out in the National Code of Practice
for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos for Commercial
Purposes (the Code) provide the national standards for
kangaroo welfare in the commercial industry
(DSEWPaC 2012) (Table 1).
This paper seeks to evaluate the ethics of the commercial
killing of kangaroos by expanding the traditional view of
animal welfare which looks at the deliberate harm caused to
wild animals to include an assessment of the indirect harm
to wild animals through disruption of natural processes
(Fraser & MacRae 2011).
We achieve the ethical evaluation through a set of inquiries
into the impact of the kangaroo industry on its components.
We utilise a cost-benefit approach to assess the industry’s
impact on kangaroos compared against its purported
benefits for people, livestock, the environment and wildlife
(including kangaroos), and seek to provide a way forward
that acknowledges non-wildlife needs and minimises harm
to wildlife (Sankoff & Steven 2009). Specifically, we ask: i)
what are the benefits derived (for humans, the environment
and kangaroos) from the industry; ii) what is the harm
(welfare cost) for kangaroos; and iii) whether there are
alternative methods that cause less harm to kangaroos.
We d ef in e a ni ma l we lf are ac co rd in g t o th e b ro ad er defi ni ti on
of animal welfare provided by the Australian Animal
Welf ar e St ra te gy, i n wh ic h we lf ar e me an s ho w th e an im al i s
coping with the conditions it is living in and sentience is the
reason why welfare matters (Anon 2011); when the pain and
distress suffered by animals cannot be easily evaluated it is
necessary to “assume that animals experience these in a
manner similar to humans unless there is evidence to the
contrary” (National Health and Medical Research Council
2004); and the impact of social dynamics on the evolutionary
potential of individuals and the persistence of populations
(Storz 1999; East et al 2009), which recognises the longer
lasting effects of human actions on the welfare of wildlife as
opposed to farmed animals (Anon 2010a). Collateral death
caused deliberately or indirectly by the kangaroo industry to
dependent young (which are not utilised as a commercial
product) is also considered a welfare issue.
Benefits arising from the commercial killing of
kangaroos
Damage mitigation on agricultural and pastoral land
Primary motivations for managing kangaroo populations stem
from the historical perceptions of kangaroos and their
perceived impact on farmers’ (crop production) and graziers’
(livestock production) incomes. A series of reports have
attempted to quantify the commercial impact of kangaroos on
farmers and graziers (Young 1984; Gibson & Young 1987;
Sloane Cook and King Pty Ltd 1988; McLeod 2004), reaching
estimates of up to (Australian dollars used throughout) $200
million (M) to graziers (Sloane Cook and King Pty Ltd 1988).
Furthermore, ecologists have traditionally speculated that
kangaroo numbers have increased since European settlement
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Table 1 Acceptable shooting and euthanasia methods as prescribed by the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting
of Kangaroos and Wallabies (Sections 2.4 and 5.1 of the Code; DSEWPaC 2012).
Description Acceptable euthanasia method
Small furless pouch young (fits within the
palm of the hand)
Single forceful blow to the base of the skull sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the
brain
OR
Stunning, immediately followed by decapitation by rapidly severing the head from the body
with a sharp blade
All furred young Single forceful blow to the base of the skull, sufficient to destroy the functional capacity of the
brain
Young-at-foot Single shot to the brain or heart where it can be delivered accurately and in safety using the
firearms and ammunition specified in Part A or B of Schedule 1
Adults A shooter must aim so as to hit the target kangaroo or wallaby in the brain (see Schedule 2)
AND
A shooter must not aim so as to hit the target kangaroo or wallaby in any other part of the
body than that specified in (i) above

Welfare ethics of the kangaroo industry 3
due to the increased availability of watering points (Calaby &
Grigg 1989; Fensham & Fairfax 2008) and land use conver-
sions of forest to pasture (Calaby & Grigg 1989).
In contrast, recent government-commissioned reviews of
the relationship between kangaroos and their environment
concluded that no correlation has been established between
commercial kangaroo killing and pastoral damage mitiga-
tion (see Olsen & Low 2006; Herbert & Elzer 2011).
Furthermore, studies that have shown that competition with
livestock for food typically occurs only during drought
(Edwards et al 1995, 1996; Dawson & Ellis 1996). These
findings have led to a dramatic revision of the cost of
kangaroos to graziers, from a previous $200M to $15.5M
(McLeod 2004). In this latest estimate the total cost of
$44.1M (to graziers and crop farmers) also includes a cost
to crop farmers estimated at $11.9M and fencing damage
across all agricultural sectors estimated at $16.7M. More
recently, artificial watering points in the arid interior of
Australia have been found to have little impact on the distri-
bution and densities of kangaroos (Montague-Drake &
Croft 2004; Croft et al 2007; Fukuda et al 2010; Letnic &
Crowther 2012); Croft (2005) suggests that many artificial
watering points in arid areas where kangaroo densities are
high are located in areas in which water was historically
accessible to kangaroos either above or right below the
ground surface in ephemeral creeks.
The lack of correlation between the commercial kill and
agricultural damage mitigation has led to some state-based
policy changes regarding the management of kangaroos.
Three out of four state kangaroo management programmes
have revised their management aims from the killing of
kangaroos as a pest management strategy to supporting a
sustainable resource industry (Department for Environment
and Heritage 2007; Department of Environment and
Climate Change 2007; Environment and Resource
Management 2007). Although the damage mitigation
benefit to agricultural properties is questionable, and
certainly much less than previously believed, kangaroos are
still considered to be pests to graziers and crop farmers.
Commercial value
According to the Kangaroo Industry Strategic Plan
2005–2010, in 2005 the industry’s estimated worth was
$200M employing some 4,000 people and projected to reach
$270M by 2010 (Kelly 2005). These jobs include primarily
the shooters, and the workers in the meat processing plants.
The industry, however, has not generated consistent returns.
Exports, the key revenue generating sector of the industry,
have fluctuated from $56M in 2003 to $46M the following
year and $77M in 2007 (Foster 2009), and since then export
values have declined to below $30M in 2009 (ABARE
2010). The large fluctuations are precipitated by both
climatic conditions and relations with trade partners.
Rainfall is a key determinant of kangaroo populations
(Caughley et al 1987) and too much of it can prevent
shooters from reaching kangaroos in the field; in recent
years Australia has been through recent extreme weather
events of both El Nino during 2009–2010 (BOM 2012a)
and La Nina 2010–2011 (BOM 2012b). In addition, the
export market was dependent on one nation, Russia, for
74% of revenue (Foster 2009). At the time of writing,
Russia has ceased kangaroo meat imports due to concerns
over hygiene (Anon 2010b; pp 20–22).
Environmental restoration
Land clearance and livestock grazing in Australia have caused
land degradation (Landsberg et al 1999) and biodiversity loss
(Fisher et al 2003). In addition, concerns about climate change
have highlighted the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions
produced by Australia’s numerous livestock (Garnaut 2007).
Kangaroos have a much lighter impact on the environment
than sheep and emit about a quarter of the methane. Therefore,
at least partial replacement of livestock with free-ranging
kangaroos on pastoral properties by graziers is being
promoted as a mitigation mechanism for these environmental
issues in Australia (Grigg 1989; Ampt & Baumber 2006;
Wilson & Edwards 2008; Cooney et al 2009).
However, the fact that kangaroos are shot at night, the lack of
management rights over kangaroos and the low returns from
kangaroos have been prohibitive to the involvement of graziers
(Grigg 2002; Chapman 2003; Cooney et al 2009). Currently,
most kangaroos are shot by licensed independent shooters and
do not replace sheep in the landscape or provide incentive for
improving land management on the farm; as such, the graziers’
only perceived benefit is that of the removal of pests (Grigg
2002; Chapman 2003; Thomsen & Davies 2007; Baumber
et al 2009). Furthermore, some ecologists question the feasi-
bility and environmental merits of partial sheep replacement
(McCallum 1995; Croft 2000; Russel 2008; Ben-Ami et al
2010). Nevertheless, if partial replacement or more direct
benefits to graziers do not occur then commercial killing will
continue to occur alongside the traditional livestock industry
without this putative environmental gain, and with the risks
associated with exploiting native wildlife.
Improved welfare outcomes
Literature that documents welfare issues in the kangaroo
industry is varied in its assessment of the severity and type of
welfare concerns, to the point of being contradictory. At one
end of the spectrum there are assertions that not managing
kangaroo populations has negative welfare ramifications. A
drought-induced increase in grazing pressure on the range-
lands can cause resident herbivores to become nutritionally
deprived (Grigg 1997). However, extreme climatic condi-
tions are natural drivers of kangaroo populations (Caughley
et al 1985; Dawson 1995), and the necessity of taking lethal
measures to alleviate the distress of free-ranging wildlife in
response to natural environmental conditions is scientifically
and ethically questionable (Bekoff 2010). Grigg (2002) also
argues that kangaroos might impact on the welfare of other
fauna dependent on the same habitats. Furthermore, relative
to other domesticated animals that are part of Australia’s
enclosed and industrialised farming systems or live exports of
farmed livestock for slaughter, it has been argued that
kangaroos experience the welfare benefits of being free-
ranging throughout their life, ideally with death being instan-
taneous from a shot to the brain (Grigg 2002).
Animal Welfare 2014, 23: 1-10
doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.001

4 Ben-Ami et al
Harm caused by the commercial killing of
kangaroos: deliberate harm
Mortality of dependent young
The role of mother-young interactions in the survival of
offspring in domestic and wild mammals is well acknowl-
edged (Bradshaw & Bateson 2000; Nowak et al 2000).
Although there is a common perception in rural communi-
ties that kangaroo young become independent of maternal
care at permanent pouch exit (Croft 2004), physiological
and behavioural studies indicate that this is far from the
case. Rather, the lack of maternal care significantly dimin-
ishes the dependent young’s likelihood of survival and may
cause harm due to starvation and dehydration, as shown by
studies on the role of milk in their diet. Although the relative
proportion of energy supplied by lactation to pasture
declines towards weaning, which is at one year for red
kangaroos when young typically reach 10–12 kg (Sharman
& Pilton 1964), 18 months for the eastern and western grey
kangaroos (Poole 1975) and over 13 months for the
common wallaroo (Dawson 1995), lactational demand on
the mother peaks during the period from permanent pouch
exit to weaning (Munn & Dawson 2003). Moreover, the
reliance on milk needs to increase substantially for young to
retain the same growth rate during drought when pasture
quality decreases (Munn & Dawson 2003).
Age and gender of young-at-foot may play a role in their
survival (Munn & Dawson 2010). High quality pasture may
promote survival of orphaned young (Stuart-Dick &
Higginbottom 1989). However, known metabolic require-
ments (Dawson 1989; Munn & Dawson 2003), vulnerabili-
ties to predation (Banks et al 2000), and low recruitment (ie
survival of young to an age where they contribute to the
kangaroo population as a whole) during drought (Newsome
1977; Shepherd 1987) or even during average rainfall years
(Newsome 1965; Bilton & Croft 2004) suggests that the
proportion of orphaned young-at-foot surviving would be
negligible (Croft 2004). Together, these available data
support the assumption that all dependent young (including
young-at-foot) would likely perish after the loss of their
mother, either through starvation, dehydration, or predation.
Due to a lack of empirical data, the mortality of
dependent young is estimated on the basis of reproductive
and behavioural ecology of kangaroos targeted by the
commercial industry and historical industry records. On
average, 75% of red kangaroo females will have pouch
young at any one time (Bilton & Croft 2001). A ten-year
average from NSW shows that approximately 30% of
commercially killed grey and red kangaroos and 10% of
wallaroos were female (Mathews 2010). Under typical
conditions in north-western NSW, 50% of female red
kangaroos and 60% of eastern and western grey kangaroo
females are likely to have young-at-foot (Witte 2005). A
conservative estimate for female kangaroos with young-
at-foot in a commercially killed population, that precludes
location-specific conditions, is 25% (Witte 2005).
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
Table 2 The estimated number of dependent young that are likely to die as collateral over ten years due to commercial
killing of female kangaroos. The national commercial kill statistics from 2000–2009 (DSEPC 2010) are used to estimate
the number of females and dependent young that are killed, based on the ten-year average reported for NSW for the
same time-period (Mathews 2010).
The number of females killed is variable for reasons of demand and industry-imposed carcase size limits (see Department of Environment
and Natural Resources 2010; Mathews 2010; Department of Environment and Resource Management 2011).
†The model assumes that 30% of kangaroos are females, except for wallaroos that are 10% (Mathews 2010).
‡Young-at-foot: 75% of females have pouch young.
§Pouch young: 25% of females have young-at-foot (Witte 2005).
Year Red kangaroo
(Macropus rufus)
Eastern grey
(M. giganteus)
Western grey
(M. fuliginosus)
Wallaroo
(M. robustus)
Total killed Females†YAF‡PY§
2000 1,173,242 1,106,208 227,552 238,439 2,745,441 775,945 193,986 543,161
2001 1,364,682 1,438,280 283,332 296,805 3,383,099 955,569 238,892 668,898
2002 1,500,588 1,810,426 330,372 257,140 3,898,526 1,118,130 279,532 782,691
2003 1,121,724 1,758,173 246,672 347,914 3,474,483 972,762 243,190 680,933
2004 988,203 1,466,325 233,496 304,047 2,992,071 836,812 209,202 585,768
2005 1,045,048 1,487,652 257,422 322,222 3,112,344 869,259 217,314 608,481
2006 1,184,554 1,510,250 288,914 305,658 3,289,376 925,681 231,420 647,977
2007 1,124,662 1,344,430 250,593 266,785 2,986,470 842,584 210,646 589,809
2008 804,278 911,815 201,199 275,915 2,193,207 602,779 150,694 421,945
2009 706,894 806,096 171,544 265,580 1,950,114 531,918 132,979 372,343
Decade total 11,013,875 13,639,655 2,491,096 2,880,505 30,025,131 8,431,438 2,107,855 5,902,007
Yearly average 1,101,388 1,363,966 249,110 288,051 3,002,513 843,144 210,786 590,201

Welfare ethics of the kangaroo industry 5
Lactation dependence continues after permanent pouch exit
as the young-at-foot typically suckles every 1.5–2 h
throughout the day from that time until they are weaned
(Russell 1989). On average, some three million kangaroos are
commercially killed annually (Table 2). A projection based on
the above considerations (as there is no formal assessment)
and the national commercial kill statistics (Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Population and Communities
[DSEPC] 2010) for the period 2000–2009 estimates that
approximately 840,000 females, 210,000 young-at-foot and
590,000 pouch young were killed annually (Table 2).
Assuming an equal distribution of pouch-young ages being
killed and that only about half are likely to be sentient,
approximately 500,000 sentient dependent young are affected
each year by the commercial killing of kangaroos.
Killing of pouch young
The Code specifies acceptable killing methods for
dependent young of various ages (Table 1). Any targeted
female kangaroos, including injured animals, must be
“thoroughly examined for pouch young” (the Code,
section 2.3). Pouch young are then to be euthanised by a
forceful blow to the head or decapitation depending on
the age of young (the Code, section 5.1).
Pouch young are thought to become sentient at roughly four
months (Tyndale-Biscoe 2005; Diesch et al 2010), about
half the pouch life of the commercially killed species
(Dawson 1995). RSPCA Australia has questioned the
appropriateness of the methods prescribed in the Code for
killing of pouch young and the level of training and compe-
tency of shooters to perform these methods (RSPCA
Australia 2002). The American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) recommends replacing manually
applied blunt force trauma to the head with other methods,
as much as possible (Anon 2013). Decapitation is consid-
ered acceptable, under the right conditions, although it notes
that electrical activity continues in the brain for some time
following decapitation (Anon 2013). While it has been
recommended that animals need to be sedated or lightly
anaesthetised prior to being decapitated (Reilly 1993), the
significance of the ongoing brain activity for pain percep-
tion is still being discussed (Anon 2013).
The AVMA Panel on Euthanasia also states that:
[p]ersonnel using physical methods of euthanasia [such
as a blow to the head or decapitation] must be well
trained and monitored for each type of physical method
performed to ensure euthanasia is conducted appropri-
ately(Anon 2013).
However, the Code requires no formal training for the
killing of dependent young and these practices are unmoni-
tored in the field.
Inhumane killing of adult kangaroos
The Code states that shooters must aim for the brain (with
the intent of achieving a humane kill). To support the Code,
carcases with body shots are not accepted by processors,
creating a disincentive for shooters to bring in kangaroos
that are not shot in the brain. Moreover, heads are removed
in the field, leaving no trace of shots penetrating the neck
area (which is also partially removed) and the head.
Nonetheless, in an examination of carcases at meat processing
plants, RSPCA Australia found that the overall proportion of
head-shot kangaroos (determined by examination of carcases
that had heads removed, as described below) that were
processed was 95.9% (RSPCA Australia 2002), meaning that
the remaining 4% (or approximately 120,000 of the three
million ten-year average) were shot in the neck or body and
not as required by the Code.
Another study by Animal Liberation NSW, of carcases in
25 chillers between 2005 and 2008, identified that up to 40%
of kangaroos per chiller may have been neck shot (Ben-Ami
2009). The apparently large difference in the RSPCA Australia
and Animal Liberation NSW estimates is due to differences in
sampling methodology. Animal Liberation NSW sampling
was based on whether the head was severed at or below the
atlantal-occipital joint (Ben-Ami 2009), which is where the
skull connects to the neck and therefore the most efficient
severing technique is at this joint where the tissue is soft.
Anywhere else in the neck area the knife will encounter stiff
resistance from the neck bones. RSPCA sampling was based
on bullet entry points in carcases. The argument here is that a
shooter would be unlikely to engage in this difficult cut unless
it was necessary to conceal a neck wound.
Both the RSPCA Australia and Animal Liberation NSW
estimates were compromised by the fact that the samples
were taken of carcases, without the heads, brought to
chillers or meat processors, rather than in the field at the
time of shooting. The true number of kangaroos killed
without a shot to the brain or neck area and left in the field
(because they will not be accepted by processors) is
unknown. Therefore, the combination of the available infor-
mation from the organisations and carcase-handling
practices of shooters suggests that 4% or 120,000 adult
kangaroos (of the average three million adult kangaroos that
are killed annually; Table 2) is a conservative estimate.
Injury to adult kangaroos
The welfare of an injured wild animal will be poor if there is
an injury and worse if there is also suffering. The animal
welfare impacts of any control method depend on the capacity
of the species to suffer, the duration and intensity of pain,
distress or suffering, and the number of animals affected
(Kirkwood et al 1994; Littin & Mellor 2005). An injury will
cause pain, which impacts the welfare of the animal in the
immediate term and may either heal or lead to death. A conser-
vative estimate of the number of animals known to die
following shooting injury to the neck is provided above, and a
further unspecified number of animals are left in the field to
either heal or die from an injury.
The injury may continue to cause direct pain (even if healed)
or may lead to impaired motor functioning of limbs and partic-
ularly the jaw (because the head is targeted). Animals may
also have multiple sensory functions that when impaired can
cause suffering (Gregory 2004). For instance, damage to brain
or other organs involved in vision, hearing, smell or other
sensory processing could be expected to impair their ability to
respond to their environment and to interact socially.
Animal Welfare 2014, 23: 1-10
doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.001

6 Ben-Ami et al
The pursuit of kangaroos prior to shooting, where this occurs,
may also cause problems for kangaroos that are shot and
survive or for others in the group. This has been shown for
other animals subject to hunting (eg red deer [Cervus elaphus];
Bradshaw & Bateson 2000). In particular, kangaroos are highly
susceptible to capture myopathy, a condition leading to pain
and distress and which may lead to eventual death within days
or weeks (Shepherd et al 1988). Survivors may suffer long-
term impairment resulting in reduced fitness and reproductive
success (Cole et al 1994). There is no work on the fate of
injured kangaroos, or the wider impacts of the methods used
for commercial killing. Therefore, a rigorous field-based study
at the point of kill to assess shooting practices and the outcome
for kangaroos is essential.
Harm caused by the commercial killing of
kangaroos: indirect harm
Mortality of young-at-foot
Yo u ng - a t -f o o t ar e o f t en n o t k i ll e d b e ca u s e sh o o t er s e i t he r h a v e
difficulty catching them due their flight response (RSPCA
Australia 2002; Croft 2004) and (if they do catch them) may
feel that it is better to let the young-at-foot live (Croft 2004).
RSPCA Australia (2002) recommends that the shooting of
females should cease until the fate of young-at-foot is better
understood (discussed below) and that the only way of avoiding
cruelty to pouch young would be to not commercially kill
females altogether. RSPCA Australia’s recommendations have
not been implemented to date, as stated by McLeod (2010):
There is currently no routine field auditing of compli-
ance with the national Code of Practice for either com-
mercial or non-commercial shooting. Field auditing of
Code of Practice compliance would provide a more
accurate picture of the extent of animal suffering.
The fate of orphaned young-at-foot remains an open
question. The number of dependent young that escape
euthanasia is unknown. The fate of these young also
remains unknown. At present there is simply no reliable
evidence of their fate or the extent to which their wel-
fare is compromised. This issue cannot go on being
ignored and remains, arguably, the highest priority.
Increased mortality during drought
The kangaroo industry has argued that the death of
dependent young arising as a result of commercial killing of
parents is considered to be a surrogate of natural mortality
(Sheehan 2009). In other words, adults would die anyway
from natural causes as would their young; the reduction of
kangaroos therefore frees up resources and improves the
survival and reproductive rates of remaining kangaroos
(Pople et al 2010). However, commercial killing pressures
may have an additive effect to natural mortality, particularly
during drought. The greatest mortality in affected kangaroo
populations, particularly in the early stages of drought, is
likely to include large young (Newsome 1965; Poole 1973)
and juveniles (Shepherd 1987). Further, Shepherd (1987)
noted that western grey kangaroo mothers are likely to
invest in their pouch young (as opposed to red mothers,
which invest in themselves). The commercial killing is
selective for the larger kangaroos of both sexes (Pople 1996,
2006) and long-term statistics for NSW show that 30%
(other than wallaroos) are females (Department of
Environment Water Heritage and Climate Change 2009).
Thus, commercial killing can expose populations to greater
mortality during climatic periods where the risk of popula-
tion decline is already higher.
Social impacts and diminished evolutionary potential
of individuals
Recent evidence suggests that the ‘evolutionary potential’
(development and transferral of genes) of individuals is
likely to be affected by the fitness level and quality of
mothers (East et al 2009). Female kangaroos are generally
most reproductively successful between the ages of
6–15 years (Bilton & Croft 2004). The death of these larger
females not only impacts nutritionally dependent offspring
but may be detrimental to other group members due to a
variety of social interactions and dependencies. Social
learning from the mother is likely to be a key factor to
survivorship into adulthood (Higginbottom & Croft 1999),
particularly as diet preferences and the ability to discrimi-
nate amongst plants are likely to be learnt from the mother
(Provenza 2003). Female kangaroos also invest in training
offspring to discriminate among stimuli used to assess
predation risk (for a review, see Higginbottom & Croft
1999). Females that associate frequently with the same indi-
viduals are able to graze longer because they can afford to
be less vigilant (Carter et al 2009).
Social learning also occurs in male groups. Play-fights often
occur between mixed-age groups to assist training and to
assess potential competitors (Croft & Snaith 1991). Adult
male kangaroos, particularly the more social eastern and
western grey kangaroos, are thought to be important in
maintaining group cohesion (Pople & Grigg 1999). The loss
of larger and older adults from a population through a size-
selective commercial killing (Pople 2004; Pople et al 2010)
may have consequences for the fitness of the remaining
individuals and destabilise social structures, (as already
expressed by Grigg 1997; Croft 2004).
Animal welfare implications
The purpose of the Code of Practice for the Humane
Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies is to:
ensure all persons intending to shoot free-living kanga-
roos or wallabies… undertake the shooting so that the
animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffer-
ing (Section 1.1).
It does not override state or territory animal welfare legisla-
tion but seeks to provide technical specifications and proce-
dures, including procedures for the euthanising of injured
kangaroos, pouch young and young-at-foot (Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities [DSEWPaC] 2012). As such, it is the key
regulatory instrument for the killing of kangaroos that
relates to animal welfare (Boom & Ben-Ami 2011).
Our analysis suggests that some provisions in the Code
relating to best practice by shooters are not met. First, it is
unlikely that young-at-foot are killed when their mothers
are shot (see above) as required by the Code (Table 1).
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Welfare ethics of the kangaroo industry 7
Second, there is a strong concern about the fate of mis-shot
adults. As noted above, existing evidence from RSPCA
Australia and Animal Liberation NSW suggests that many
kangaroos are not shot in the brain per the desired welfare
standard in the Code (Table 1), and it is impossible to know
how many mis-shot kangaroos are left in the field.
The mandated methods for pouch young euthanasia have
also been questioned, as discussed above, and there is no
requirement for training in the Code — for either the killing
of adults, or euthanasia of pouch young.
Possible alternatives
Alternative killing mechanisms are not viable for the
kangaroo industry because kangaroos cannot be farmed or
held in fenced enclosures. The cost of fencing for kangaroos
(compared to livestock) are prohibitive and they experience
capture myopathy when stressed (Shepherd 1983). Rather,
we suggest several changes to at least bring the industry’s
welfare practices to the standard already mandated by the
Code: i) amending the Code to clearly provide that
kangaroos must be shot in the brain (rather than requiring
that shots be aimed at the brain); ii) that shooters retain the
heads on carcases so adherence to the Code can be
monitored at processing; iii) that only kangaroos shot in the
brain will be accepted for processing; iv) mandating a male-
only kill would ensure that the welfare of young is not
compromised; and v) adopting adaptive management
concepts, such as using new knowledge to constantly update
guidance and practices (Warburton & Norton 2009).
However, even if these changes were adopted, a significant
welfare concern would remain unresolved, as there will
always remain a proportion of adult animals that are not
shot correctly, left in the field, and suffer.
The ethics of the kangaroo industry
Benefits of the kangaroo industry include income to partic-
ipants in the industry and some cost reduction to graziers
(much less than previously thought). Although there is
thought to be a potential for a positive impact on the envi-
ronment, supporting evidence is lacking. The commercial
kill may also ameliorate the deaths (ease the suffering) of
kangaroos during drought. The costs include deliberate and
indirect harm to dependent young, and a number of unin-
tended harms to adult kangaroos. These include increased
mortality during drought, inhumane killing of a portion of
adult kangaroos, and a disruption of social stability and the
evolutionary potential of individuals.
The benefits derived from the kangaroo industry are
lower than previously thought, and the welfare costs are
higher than expected. Moreover, if the Code establishes
the welfare standard that the industry itself aspires to,
then the substantial gap between the intended and the
actual welfare outcomes for kangaroos in the commer-
cial kill requires better enforcement and improved
policy (suggested above) to mitigate harm.
References
ABARE 2010 Report provided upon request, Australian Bureau of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Ampt P and Baumber A 2006 Building connections between
kangaroos, commerce and conservation in the rangelands.
Australian Zoologist 33: 398-409
Anon 2010a Conservation and animal welfare: consensus state-
ment and guiding principles. Animal Welfare 19: 191-192
Anon 2010b Official Committee Hansard: Senate, Rural and Regional
Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Australian Senate:
Canberra, ACT, Australia
Anon 2011 The Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and National
Implementation Plan 2010-14. Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forrestry: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Anon 2013 AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition.
American Veterinary Medical Association: Schaumburg, Il, USA
Banks PB, Newsome AE and Dickman CR 2000 Predation
by red foxes limits recruitment in a population of eastern grey
kangaroos. Austral Ecology 25: 283-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/
j.1442-9993.2000.01039.x
Barton PS, Manning AD, Gibb H, Lindenmayer DB and
Cunningham SA 2009 Conserving ground-dwelling beetles in
an endangered woodland community: multi-scale habitat effects
on assemblage diversity. Biological Conservation 142(8): 1701-1709.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.005
Baumber A, Cooney R, Ampt P and Gepp K 2009
Kangaroos in the rangelands: opportunities for landholder collab-
oration. The Rangeland Journal 31: 161-167. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1071/RJ08045
Bekoff M 2010 The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our
Compassion Footprint. New World Library: Novato, California, USA
Ben-Ami D 2009 A Shot in the Dark: A Report on Kangaroo
Harvesting. Animal Liberation NSW: Sydney, Australia
Ben-Ami D, Croft BD, Ramp D and Boom K 2010 Advocating
Kangaroo Meat: Towards Ecological Benefit or Plunder? THINKK, The
University of Technology Sydney: Ultimo, NSW, Australia
Bilton AD and Croft DB 2001 Lifetime Reproductive Success in a
Population of Female Red Kangaroos (Macropus rufus) in the Sheep
Rangelands of Western New South Wales; Environmental Effects and
Population Dynamics. Recent Advances in Scientific Knowledge of
Kangaroos UNSW: Sydney, Australia
Bilton AD and Croft DB 2004 Lifetime reproductive success in
a population of female red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) in the
sheep rangelands of western New South Wales: environmental
effects and population dynamics. Australian Mammalogy 26: 45-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AM04045
BOM 2012a El Niño: Detailed Australian Analysis. Bureau of
Meteorology: Canberra, ACT, Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/
climate/enso/enlist/
BOM 2012b Special Climate Statement 38. Australia’s Wettest Two-
Year Period on Record; 2010-2011. National Climate Centre,
Bureau of Meteorology: Canberra, ACT, USA
Animal Welfare 2014, 23: 1-10
doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.001

8 Ben-Ami et al
Boom K and Ben-Ami D 2011 Shooting our wildlife: an analy-
sis of the law and its animal welfare outcomes for kangaroos &
wallabies. Australian Animal Protection Law Journal 4: 44
Boom K, Ben-Ami D, Croft DB, Cushing N, Ramp D and
Boronyak L 2012 ‘Pest’ and resource: a legal history of
Australia’s kangaroos. Animal Studies Journal 1: 15-40
Bradshaw EL and Bateson P 2000 Welfare implications of
culling red deer (Cervus elaphus). Animal Welfare 9: 3-24
Calaby JH and Grigg GC 1989 Changes in acropodoid communi-
ties and populations in the past 200 years, and the future. In: Grigg G,
Jarman P and Hume I (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-Kangaroos
pp 813-820. Surrey Beatty and Sons: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Caughley G, Grigg GC and Smith L 1985 The effect of
drought on kangaroo populations. Journal of Wildlife Management
40: 290-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3800428
Caughley G, Short J, Grigg GC and Nix H 1987 Kangaroos
and climate: an analysis of distribution. Journal of Animal Ecology 56:
751-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4946
Chapman M 2003 Kangaroos and feral goats as economic
resources for graziers: some views from a Southwest
Queensland. Rangeland Journal 25: 20-36. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1071/RJ03003
Cole JR, Langford DG and Gibson DF 1994 Capture myopa-
thy in Lagorchestes hirsutus (Marsupilia: Macropdidae). Australian
Mammalogy 17: 137-138
Cooney R, Baumber A, Ampt P and Wilson G 2009 Sharing
Skippy: how can landholders be involved in kangaroo production
in Australia? The Rangeland Journal 31: 283-292.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ08025
Croft DB 2000 Sustainable use of wildlife in western New South
Wales: possibilities and problems. Rangeland Journal 22(1): 88-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/RJ0000088
Croft DB 2004 Kangaroo management: individuals and commu-
nities. Australian Mammalogy 26: 101-108
Croft DB 2005 The future of kangaroos: going, going, gone? In:
Wilson M and Croft DB (eds) Kangaroos Myths and
Realities pp 223-243. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council
Incorporated: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Croft DB, Montague-Drake R and Dowle M 2007
Biodiversity and water point closure: is the grazing piosphere a
persistent effect? In: Dickman CR, Lunney D and Burgin S (eds)
Animals of Arid Australia: Out There on Their Own? pp 143-171. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mossman, Australia
Croft DB and Snaith F 1991 Boxing in red kangaroos,
Macropus rufus: aggression or play? International Journal of
Comparative Psychology 4: 221-236
Daoust P, Crook A, Bollinger T, Campbell K and Wong J
2002 Animal welfare and the harp seal hunt in Atlantic Canada.
Canadian Veterinary Journal 43: 687-694
Dawson TJ 1989 Diets of Macropodoid Marsupials: General Patterns
and Environmental Influences. Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-
Kangaroos. Surrey Beatty and Sons: Chipping Norton, UK
Dawson TJ 1995 Kangaroos: Biology of the Largest Marsupial.
University of New South Wales Press: Sydney, Australia
Dawson TJ and Ellis BA 1996 Diets of mammalian herbivores
in Australian arid, hilly shrublands: seasonal effects on overlap
between euros (hill kangaroos), sheep and feral goats, and on
dietary niche breadths and electivities. Journal of Arid Environments
34: 491-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1996.0127
Department for Environment and Heritage 2007 The Kangaroo
Conservation andManagement Plan for South Australia 2008-2012.
Government of South Australia: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Department of Environment and Climate Change 2007
New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan
2007–2011. Department of Environment and Climate Change:
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2010
2011 Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Quota Report for South Australia.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Adelaide,
SA, Australia
Department of Environment and Resource Management
2011 Queensland Commercial Macropod Management Program,
Annual Report 2010. Department of Environment and Resource
Management: QLD, Australia
Department of Environment Water Heritage and
Climate Change 2009 Kangaroo and Wallaby Harvesting Statistics.
Australian Government: Canberra, ACT, Australia.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-har-
vest/kangaroo/stats.html
Diesch TJ, Mellor DJ, Johnson CB and Lentle RG 2010
Developmental changes in the electroencephalogram and
responses to a noxious stimulus in anaesthetized tammar wallaby
joeys (Macropus eugenii eugenii). Laboratory Animals 44(2): 79-87.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/la.2009.009045
DSEPC 2010 Kangaroos and Wallabies. Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Population and Communities:
Canberra, ACT, Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodi-
versity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/index.html
Edwards GP, Croft DB and Dawson TJ 1995 The dietary
overlap between red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and sheep (Ovis
aries) in the arid rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of
Ecology 20: 324-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-
9993.1995.tb00544.x
Edwards GP, Dawson TJ and Croft DB 1996 Competition
between red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and sheep (Ovis aries) in
the arid rangelands of Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 21:
165-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1996.tb00597.x
Environment and Resource Management 2007 Wildlife
Trade Management Plan for Export, Commercially Harvested
Macropods: 2008-2012. Environment and Resource Management,
QLD, Australia
Fensham RJ and Fairfax RJ 2008 Water-remoteness for graz-
ing relief in Australian arid-lands. Biological Conservation 141(6):
1447-1460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.016
Fisher DO, Blomberg SP and Owens IPF 2003 Extrinsic ver-
sus intrinsic factors in the decline and extinction of Australian
marsupials. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 270: 1801-
1808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2447
Foster M 2009 Emerging animal and plant industries, their value to
Australia. Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Francione G 2000 Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or Your
Dog. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USA
Fraser D 2010 Toward a synthesis of conservation and animal
welfare science. Animal Welfare 19: 121-124
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Welfare ethics of the kangaroo industry 9
Fraser D and MacRae AM 2011 Four types of activities that
affect animals: implications for animal welfare science and animal
ethics philosophy. Animal Welfare 20: 581-590
Fukuda Y, McCallum HI, Grigg GC and Pople AR 2010
Fencing artificial waterpoints failed to influence density and distri-
bution of red kangaroos (Macropus rufus). Wildlife Research 36:
457-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR08122
Garnaut R 2007 Garnaut Climate Change Review. Issues Paper 1
Climate Change: Land Use: Agriculture and Forestry. Australian
Greenhouse Office: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Gibson LM and Young MD 1987 Kangaroos: Counting the Cost.
Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. CSIRO:
Deniliquin, NSW, Australia
Gill RB 2000 Managing wildlife ethics issues ethically. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080
/10871200009359196
Gregory N 2004 Physiology and Behaviour of Animal Suffering,
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead,
Herts, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470752494
Grigg GC 1997 A crossroads in kangaroo politics. Australian
Biologist 10: 12-22
Grigg GC 1989 Kangaroo harvesting and the conservation of
arid and semi-arid rangelands. Biological Conservation 3: 194-197.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1989.tb00072.x
Grigg GC 2002 Conservation benefit from harvesting kangaroos: sta-
tus report at the start of a new millennium, a paper to stimulate discus-
sion and research. In: Lunney D and Dickman C (eds) A Zoological
Revolution. Using Native Fauna to Assist in its Own Survival pp 53-76. Royal
Zoological Society of NSW: Mossman, NSW, Australia
Herbert CA and Elzer A 2011 Review of Scientific Literature
Relevant to the Commercial Harvest Management of Kangaroos.
Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and
Cabinet: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Higginbottom KB and Croft DB 1999 Social learning in mar-
supials. In: Box HO and Gibson KR (eds) Mammalian Social
Learning: Comparative and Ecological Perspectives pp 80-101.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK
Higginbottom KB and Douglass SN 2010 Monitoring the fate
of translocated eastern grey kangaroos at the Gold Coast. In:
Graeme C and Mark E (eds) Macropods: The Biology of Kangaroos,
Wallabies and Rat-Kangaroos pp 341-348. CSIRO Publishing:
Collingwood, VIC, Australia
Kelly J 2005 Kangaroo Industry Strategic Plan. Rural Industries
Research and Development Corporation: Barton, ACT, Australia
Kirkwood JK, Sainsbury AW and Bennett PM 1994 The
welfare of free-living wild animals: methods of assessment. Animal
Welfare 3: 257-273
Landsberg J, O’Connor T and Freudenberger D 1999 The
impacts of livestock grazing on biodiversity in natural ecosystems.
In: Jung HJ and Fahey GC (eds) Nutritional Ecology of
Herbivores pp 752-777. American Society of Animal Science:
Savoy, IL, USA
Letnic M and Crowther SM 2012 Patterns in the abundance of
kangaroo populations in arid Australia are consistent with the
exploitation ecosystems hypothesis. Oikos 122:761-769.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20425.x
Littin KE 2010 Animal welfare and pest control: meeting both
conservation and animal welfare goals. Animal Welfare 19: 171-176
Littin KE and Mellor DJ 2005 Strategic animal welfare issues:
ethical and animal welfare issues arising from the killing of wildlife
for disease control and environmental reasons. Scientific and
Technical Review 24: 767-782
Lunney D 2010 A history of the debate (1948-2009) on the
commercial harvesting of kangaroos, with particular reference to
New South Wales and the role of Gordon Grigg. Australian
Zoologist 35: 383-430
Mathews F 2010 Wild animal conservation and welfare in agri-
cultural systems. Animal Welfare 19: 159-170
McCallum H 1995 Would property rights over kangaroos neces-
sarily lead to their conservation? Implications of fisheries models. In:
Grigg G, Hale P and Lunney D (eds) Conservation Through Sustainable
Use of Wildlife pp 215-223. The Centre for Conservation Biology,
University of Queensland: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
McLeod R 2004 Counting the Cost: Impact of Invasive Animals in
Australia, 2004. Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal
Control: Canberra, ACT, Australia
McLeod S 2010 Is kangaroo management justified and humane? What
are the concerns and how can they be addressed? RSPCA Australia
Scientific Seminar 2010, RSPCA Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia
Messmer TA, Cornicelli L, Deker DJ and Hewitt DG 1997
Stakeholder acceptance of urban deer management techniques.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 360-366
Montague-Drake R and Croft DB 2004 Do kangaroos exhib-
it water-focused grazing patterns in arid new south wales? A case
study in Stuart National Park. Australian Mammalogy 26: 87-100
Munn A and Dawson TJ 2003 Energy requirements of the red
kangaroo (Macropus rufus): impacts of age, growth and body size
in a large desert-dwelling herbivore. Journal of Comparative
Physiology 173: 575-558
Munn AJ and Dawson TJ 2010 Mechanistic explanations for
the drought-related mortality of juvenile red kangaroos (Macropus
rufus): implications for population dynamics and modelling. In:
Coulson G and Eldridge M (eds) Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies
and Rat-kangaroos pp 117-126. CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood,
VIC, Australia
National Health and Medical Research Council 2004
Australian Code of Practice for the Care and use of animals for
Scientific Purposes 7th Edition 2004. National Health and Medical
Research Council: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Newsome AE 1965 Reproduction in natural populations of the
red kangaroo, Megaleia rufa (Desmarest), in central Australia.
Australian Journal of Zoology 13: 735-759. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1071/ZO9650735
Newsome AE 1977 The ages of non-breeding red kangaroos.
Australian Wildlife Research 4: 7-11. http://dx.doi.org
/10.1071/WR9770007
Nowak R, Porter RH, Lévy F, Orgeur P and Schaal B 2000
Role of mother-young interactions in the survival of offspring in
domestic mammals. Reviews of Reproduction 5: 151-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1530/ror.0.0050153
Olsen P and Low T 2006. Update on Current State of Scientific
Knowledge on Kangaroos in the Environment, Including Ecological and
Economic Impact and Effect of Culling, Kangaroo Management
Advisory Panel: Dubbo, NSW, Australia
Animal Welfare 2014, 23: 1-10
doi: 10.7120/09627286.23.1.001

10 Ben-Ami et al
Poole WE 1973 A study of breeding in grey kangaroos, Macropus
giganteus (Shaw) and M. fuliginosus (Desmarest), in central New
South Wales. Australian Journal of Zoology 21: 183-212.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO9730183
Poole WE 1975 Reproduction in the two species of grey kanga-
roos, Macropus giganteus (Shaw) and M.fuliginosus (Desmarest) II.
Gestation, parturition and pouch life. Australian Journal of Zoology
22: 277-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/ZO9740277
Pople AR 1996 Effects of harvesting upon the demography of red
kangaroos in western Queensland. PhD Thesis, University of
Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Pople AR 2004 Population monitoring for kangaroo manage-
ment. Australian Mammalogy 26: 37-44. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1071/AM04037
Pople AR 2006 Modelling the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of
Kangaroo Populations for Harvest Management. Department of
Environment and Heritage: Canberra. ACT, Australia
Pople AR, Cairns SC and McLeod SR 2010 Increased repro-
ductive success in older female red kangaroos and the impact of
harvesting. Australian Zoologist 35: 160-165. http://dx.doi.org
/10.7882/AZ.2010.004
Pople T and Grigg G 1999 Commercial Harvesting of Kangaroos
in Australia, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Provenza FD 2003 Foraging Behaviour: Managing to Survive in a
World of Change. Logan, Department of Forest, Range and Wildlife
Services Utah State University: USA
Reilly JS 1993 Euthanasia of Animals used for Scientific Purposes.
Australia and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in
Research and Teaching (ANZCCART): Adelaide, SA, Australia
RSPCA 2002 Kangaroo Shooting Code Compliance. 4.4.4.2.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publica-
tions/kangaroo-report/field-inspections.html#432
<http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publica-
tions/kangaroo-report/field-inspections.html>
RSPCA Australia 2002 A Survey of the Extent of Compliance with
the Requirements of the Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of
Kangaroos. RSPCA Australia: Deakin West, ACT, Australia
Russel G 2008 Comment on Wilson and Edwards’ proposal for
low-emission meat. Conservation Letters 1: 244. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00034.x
Russell EM 1989 Maternal behaviour in the Macropodoidea. In:
Grigg G, Jarman P and Hume I (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-
kangaroos pp 549-569. Surrey Beatty: NSW, Australia
Sankoff P and Steven W 2009 Animal Law in Australasia, A New
Dialogue. The Federation Press: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Committee 1998 Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native
Wildlife, Executive Summary. Parliament of Australia, Senate:
Canberra, ACT, USA
Sharman GB and Pilton PE 1964 The life history and repro-
duction of the red kangaroo (Megaleia rufa). Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London 142: 29-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111
j.1469-7998.1964.tb05152.x
Sheehan P 2009 A bloody mob of hypocrites. Sydney Morning
Herald. Fairfax Publishing Ltd: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Shepherd N 1987 Condition and recruitment of kangaroos. In:
Caughley G, Shepherd N and Short J (eds) Kangaroos Their Ecology
and Management in the Sheep Rangelands of Australia pp 135-158.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9780511898082.012
Shepherd NC 1983 The feasibility of farming kangaroos.
Australian Rangelands Journal 5(1): 35-44. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1071/RJ9830035
Shepherd NC, Hopwood PR and Dostine PL 1988 Capture
myopathy: 2 techniques for estimating its prevalence and severity
in red kangaroos, Macropus rufus. Wildlife Research 15: 83-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR9880083
Sloane Cook and King Pty Ltd 1988 The Economic Impact of
Pasture Weeds, Pests and Diseases on the Australian Wool Industry.
Consultant Report to the Australian Wool Corporation,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Storz JE 1999 Genetic consequences of mammalian social struc-
ture. Journal of Mammalogy 80: 553-569. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2307/1383301
Stuart-Dick RI and Higginbottom KB 1989 Strategies of
parental investment in macropodoids. In: Grigg G, Jarman P and
Hume I (eds) Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-kangaroos pp 571-592.
Surrey Beatty & Sons: NSW, Australia
Thomsen DA and Davies J 2007 Rules, norms and strategies
of kangaroo harvest. Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management 14: 123-133
Tyndale-Biscoe CH 2005 Life of Marsupials. CSIRO Publishing:
Collingwood, VIC, Australia
van der Ree R, Jaeger JAG, van der Grift EA and
Clevenger AP 2011 Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife pop-
ulations and landscape function: road ecology is moving towards
larger scales. Ecology and Society 16: 48
Warburton B and Norton BG 2009 Towards a knowledge-
based ethic for lethal control of nuisance wildlife. Journal of Wildlife
Management 73: 158-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/2007-313
Weldon I 2008 Why doesn’t animal protection legislation pro-
tect animals? (and how it’s getting worse). Australian Animal
Protection Law Journal 9: 1
Wilson RG and Edwards JM 2008 Native wildlife on range-
lands to minimize methane and produce lower-emission meat:
kangaroos versus livestock. Conservation Letters 1: 119-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00023.x
Witte I 2005 Kangaroos misunderstood and maligned reproduc-
tive miracle. In: Wilson M and Croft BD (eds) Kangaroos Myths
and Realities pp 188-207. The Australian Wildlife Protection
Council Incorporated: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Young MD 1984 Rangeland administration. In: Harrington GN,
Wilson AD and Young MD (eds) Management of Australia’s
Rangelands. CSIRO: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
© 2014 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare