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

Abstract

Australia’s first people managed landscapes for kangaroo species as important elements of their diet, accoutrements and ceremony. This developed and persisted for about 65,000 years. The second wave of colonists from the United Kingdom, Ireland and many subsequent countries introduced familiar domesticated livestock and they have imposed their agricultural practices on the same landscapes since 1788. This heralded an ongoing era of management of kangaroos that are perceived as competitors to livestock and unwanted consumers of crops. Even so, a kangaroo image remains the iconic identifier of Australia. Kangaroo management is shrouded in dogma and propaganda and creates a tension along a loose rural–city divide. This divide is further dissected by the promotion of the consumption of kangaroo products as an ecological good marred by valid concerns about hygiene and animal welfare. In the last decade, the fervour to suppress and micro-manage populations of some kangaroo species has mounted. This includes suppression within protected areas that have generally been considered as safe havens. This review explores these tensions between the conservation of iconic and yet abundant wildlife, and conflict with people and the various interfaces at which they meet kangaroos.

Bouncing back? Kangaroo-human resistance in contemporary Australia

“…This concern sits in turn within a broader critique stemming primarily from the compassionate conservation movement of emergent “utilitarian conservation” and “sustainable use of wildlife” models, that position some species as killable “resources” in ways that ultimately serve to further the vested interests of human actors and economies (Boom et al, 2012; Ramp 2013). Other critics, notably Indigenous Australian community representatives and Indigenous corporate bodies, have condemned the ways in which both emergent conservation and commodification logics perpetuate the historical exclusion of Indigenous peoples, protocols, and practices (Croft and Witte, 2021; Thomsen et al, 2006). These actors highlight the need for genuine social and economic inclusion of Indigenous Australians as equal partners, entrepreneurs, and beneficiaries in the kangaroo meat industry, in order to counter both the whiteness of the sector's monopoly and the “white people thinking” driving anti-roo activist campaigns and boycotts (Kurmelovs, 2021).…”

“…Returning to Collard et al's manifesto, the kangaroo population problem invites reflection on the fine (and often violent) line distinguishing the promise of “abundance” from the perils of “overabundance” (Croft and Witte, 2021). This line is often less about science (as contested as the science is) as it is about vested human interests (Ramp, 2013).…”

The Impacts of Drought on the Health and Demography of Eastern Grey Kangaroos

“…However, even though kangaroos may utilize AWPs to drink, there is no evidence that AWPs influence densities or assist with population growth [26,27]. While dingoes can suppress kangaroo populations through top-down regulation [28], in the absence of dingoes, kangaroo abundance and population dynamics are driven by primary productivity and the availability of food sources [29][30][31]. Despite this, access to water from AWPs and natural water sources is likely important for individuals in managing their health during drought [31].…”

Landscapes of fear in anthropogenic environments: how landscapes of fear created by humans and wolves affect deer behavior and structure ecosystems

“…This leads to economic losses, threatens people's livelihoods, and can lead to retaliatory killing of wildlife, inducing conservation challenges. For example, in Africa, elephants and large predators are responsible for great economic losses because of damage to agriculture and livestock (Mhuriro-Mashapa et al, 2018), and in Australia many introduced and native species (such as kangaroos) require management to mitigate their negative impacts on crops or other species (Croft & Witte, 2021;Descovich et al, 2016;Doherty et al, 2017;Read et al, 2021). In Europe and the USA, specific ecological and societal concerns are on the rise about growing deer population sizes (Côté et al, 2004;Mcshea, 2012;Nugent et al, 2011), and their negative impacts on vegetation structure and composition, arthropods and birds species (Holt et al, 2011;Mathisen & Skarpe, 2011;Vázquez & Simberloff, 2003), damage to crops, and dangers to traffic (Bruinderink & Hazebroek, 1996).…”