The role of inspections in the commercial kangaroo industry

Boom, Keely; Ben‐Ami, Dror; Boronyak, Louise; Riley, Sophie

doi:10.5130/ijrlp.i2.2013.2725

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Licenced killing of kangaroos is the world's largest commercial kill of wild animals on land. Each year licences are approved to kill more than 1 million [6]. They are mostly killed for their meat and fur [3].…”

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When communicating about culling the kangaroo industry tend to emphasise themes of pest control, harvesting an abundant resource, and adherence to a strict national code concerning the requirement to kill instantly with a single shot to the head with approved firearms [7]. Critics of culling processes have stressed cruelty [4] and the lack of enforcement and compliance with the provisions of the code in the remote sites where killing tends to take place [6]. Some have also questioned the science and other claims used to justify killing, such as over abundance and damage to environments.…”

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To improve kangaroo welfare Boom et al (2013) called for a range of improvements in processes including improved training in humane killing, increased penalties for violations, and more effective screening and scrutiny in the granting of culling licences [6]. Officials who make important decisions concerning the coexistence of humans and wildlife often find themselves between interest groups with polarised views, and in situations where some people are bound not to be pleased, whatever the decision [5].…”

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

Simmons

2017

SHS Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. All countries manage human and wildlife coexistence. Where traditionally humans may have killed animals perceived to be a problem, this is often no longer legal or socially acceptable. Decision-makers tend to feel less strongly about coexistence issues than the people who attempt to influence them on behalf of human or wildlife interests. It has been argued that links between human interests and decisions affecting wildlife should be transparent, and that open decision making processes involving a range of local stakeholders will improve outcomes for humans and wildlife. This paper examines one case incident in an ongoing conflict between an international car racing track and kangaroos that have occasionally been found on the track during a race, causing danger to themselves and race participants. A secret local government report and plan to cull kangaroos was obtained using Freedom of Information legislation. When released to the media the subsequent public discussion showed a much greater concern for kangaroo stress, harm and right to live than the official report, and called for consideration of a range of alternatives to culling. This led to postponement of culling plans, and commitment to a more open community discussion of options. The case clearly supports claims that greater transparency and local stakeholder participation in management decision processes can improve welfare outcomes for non-human animals.

show abstract

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Culling Justifications and Calls For More Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

Simmons

2017

SHS Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Australia Kangaroos are a protected species, making it necessary to obtain a licence to kill them. Each year licences are approved for the killing of more than 1 million (Boom et al, 2013), and licensed killing constitutes the world's largest commercial kill of wild animals on land (Boronyak-Vasco & Perry, 2015). Mostly killed for their meat and fur, the annual value to Australia has recently been estimated at $88.8 million AUD ($63.1 USD), and 880 full time equivalent jobs (Boronyak-Vasco & Perry, 2015).…”

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When communicating about culling the kangaroo industry tend to emphasise the 'harvest' of an abundant resource, the control of pests, and shooter adherence to a strict concerning the requirement to kill instantly with a single shot to the head (Kelly, 2013). Some recent research has called for greater scrutiny of many aspects of the processes that lead to granting licences to cull kangaroos (Boom et al, 2013;Simmons, 2016). Kangaroos are not farmed and killed in sterile farm sheds or conditions, they are shot in the open and wild.…”

Section: Research Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cullers and Guardians: Subcultures, Attitudes and Culling Kangaroos

Simmons¹,

Mehmet²

2016

JKMJC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional approaches to identifying and classifying subcultures (such as class and demographics) are limited in their applicability online. Social media provide an abundant source of insight into subcultures, but the irregular and natural presentation of data often defies systematic analysis and traditional tools. To identify and understand subcultures this study uses appraisal method to analyse comments in public Facebook discussions. It focuses on a contentious issue in Australian society, the culling of kangaroos. The findings are consistent with existing theories about wildlife attitudes and subcultures, suggesting credibility in the sample and findings. Two main groups were identified, referred to here as Cullers, who favour culling and reflect a more general attitude of human dominance over wildlife, and Guardians, who oppose culling and reflect a more general attitude of mutuality in rights and relations for humans and other species. The study supports previous research assertions that attitudes and values are integral to the development of subcultures. The appraisal method provided valuable insight into the complexity of attitudes within the two main groups. The analysis using attitudes helped to reveal economic, environmental, patriotic and rights influences on positions taken by subcultures, and suggests merit in future research using appraisal to identify and account for 'sub-subcultures'.

show abstract

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

Hampton¹,

Teh-White²

2018

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many wildlife use industries are facing criticism from animal welfare groups. In some recent cases, opposition to contentious practices (e.g., kangaroo [Macropus spp.] harvesting) has achieved widespread community support and industries have lost market access or regulatory approval. The concept of social license to operate has become an important focus for many natural resource management fields, but there is ostensibly less awareness of its role in animal industries. To regard this contemporary threat to traditional wildlife management as more than inexplicable requires some delving into social sciences. We use the example of the declining harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) harvest in Canada to illustrate how poorly addressed animal welfare concerns can erode social license and decimate even ecologically sustainable wildlife use enterprises. We argue that other consumptive wildlife use industries, such as North American fur harvesting and kangaroo harvesting in Australia are at risk of loss of social license if animal welfare concerns are not addressed proactively and effectively. When faced with opposition from animal advocacy groups, many wildlife use industries have traditionally been reactive and have been reluctant to engage with stakeholders who possess seemingly irreconcilable differences. Instead, industries have often resorted to secrecy or deception, or have steadfastly defended their current approaches while attacking their critics. We suggest that a more effective approach would be for industries to proactively engage with stakeholders, establish a shared vision for how their industry should operate, and support this vision by transparently monitoring animal welfare outcomes. Proactive management of community expectations surrounding animal welfare is essential for the maintenance of social license for wildlife use enterprises. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

The role of inspections in the commercial kangaroo industry

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

Transparency and communication can improve wildlife welfare outcomes: A case of kangaroos

Cullers and Guardians: Subcultures, Attitudes and Culling Kangaroos

Animal welfare, social license, and wildlife use industries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About