feral

A UNSW Sydney study says more evidence is needed before declaring the dingo a feral animal, casting a shadow over state governments’ justification for culling Australia’s largest carnivorous mammal. There is no conclusive evidence that the Australian dingo was once domesticated, UNSW scientists reveal, challenging the notion that the animal is therefore feral.

In a study published today by UNSW Sydney researchers, Professor Bill Ballard and Dr Laura Wilson suggest more research is needed that incorporates ancient DNA and whole genome data before such a conclusion can be made. The pair also examine evidence supporting the idea that the dingo was tamed, rather than domesticated.

The question on whether or not the dingo was ever domesticated is an important one because by definition, a feral animal is one that has returned to the wild following domestication. It overarches an ongoing, politically charged debate between governments, pastoralists, miners, scientists and conservationists throughout Australia.

Legislation

This year the Western Australian government is planning reforms to the Biodiversity Conservation Act which will not only continue to define the dingo as a wild dog that is not native to Australia, but will also remove the classification of the animal as part of Australia’s fauna.

The upshot is that dingoes, which are thought to have lived on mainland Australia for at least 3500 years, could be trapped and killed with impunity, with some pastoralists and mining companies favouring culls to protect people and livestock.

In an attempt to take the heat out of the debate and reintroduce a scholarly framework for discussion, the authors reviewed past research to test whether there are indicators of dingoes being domesticated versus evidence the canids* were merely tamed.

They invoke Darwin’s writings in 1868 to make the distinction between domestication – defined as artificial selection as a result of breeding by humans for desired traits – and the taming of an animal, where a species is unconsciously selected by humans through interaction that may casually benefit both parties.

If there is evidence the dingo was tamed rather than domesticated (and has since reverted to its untamed ancestral wild state), the authors argue the Western Australian government’s policies are “based on an incomplete understanding of the evolutionary history of the canid”.

Genetic markers

Study lead-author Professor Ballard is an evolutionary biologist from UNSW's School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences. He says the research, which examines genetic markers to distinguish untamed and wild canids from ‘feralised’ dogs, could be used to inform management strategies.

“Untamed and wild canids are not expected to carry signatures of artificial selection which are the hallmarks of domestication,” he says.

“In such a case, ancestral dingoes are predicted to have fully intergrated into the ecosystem upon arrival to Australia.

“In contrast, feralised dogs are expected to show genetic signatures of human selection, which would influence the foods they eat, their responses to humans as well as brain functions.

“But even if the latter scenario is true and dingoes can be regarded as once-domesticated, an open question that could be the subject of a future proposal is ‘Does 3500 years of integration into the Australian biota make them native?’”

Morphology

Co-author Dr Laura Wilson, from UNSW’s School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, brings her expertise in morphology to the study. She says expressing the knowns and unknowns about the dingo’s biological and evolutionary profile makes it an exciting time for research on the dingo.

“There are a whole host of morphological features that are associated with domestication in mammals, and dogs actually stand out as the extreme, being the only domesticated mammal to possess the full suite of these features,” she says.

“These include, for example, shortening of the face, reduction in brain size, depigmentation of the skin or fur, development of a curly tail and floppy ears.”

In contrast, pure dingoes have been shown to have cranial growth patterns more similar to wolves than domesticated dogs, larger brains and a more discrete breeding season producing fewer pups than domestic dogs.

Dingoes are also notably less sociable with humans than domesticated dogs, characterised by a weaker ability to interpret gestures and a shorter time maintaining eye contact.

At the genetic level, there is consensus that there are at least two dingo ecotypes (Alpine and Desert) and these are closely related to New Guinea Singing Dogs. The authors note that some studies suggest Alpine dingoes are genetically similar to the African Basenji dog, implying dingoes were historically domesticated but now feralised.

Other studies examine the presence of the Amylase gene which regulates enzymes to help with the digestion of starches. In domesticated dogs, there are far more copies of the gene, which assists with a human-provided, starch-rich diet, whereas in dingoes and their wolf ancestors, copies of the gene exists in lower numbers, suggesting the dingo’s diet was not reliant on humans.

Professor Ballard is in a good position to be talking about dingo genes, having won the World’s Most Interesting Genome competition in 2017. But after looking for clues in support of and against the dingo’s domestication, he is convinced of the need of more research before making decisions about its future.

“We actually know less than I thought,” he says. “So I think it’s time to be more strategic and rigorous with our studies so that debates are based on data and not anecdotes or ‘gut’ feelings.”

* members of the dog family Canidae, including wolves, jackals, foxes, dingoes and dogs.

Ever wondered what domesticated cats think? Especially those rescued from the wild? Here are some snippets telepathically transmitted to the human caretaker.

The human tells me every day how beautiful I am. She reminds me how lucky I am to have a good home where I am loved, well fed and so on. She must think I have a very short memory. Luckily this doesn’t go on for too long. But then later once I’m sleeping she creeps up on me and starts patting me again. Of course I start purring but I know what’s coming – the flea comb. I let her comb me for about 4 minutes and then it gets annoying. My tail starts to slash left to right slowly and if she fails to notice she is rewarded with a sharp scratch with my claws that draws blood from her skin. She yells pathetically. I don’t know why she doesn’t expect anything different just because I’m purring as I slash her.

Anyway she is slowly getting trained. It’s only been about 4 years to this point and we still have major issues mainly around food and how often I am fed. My preference has always been to be fed in the middle of the night, morning, midday, afternoon, dinner and bedtime but she keeps feeling the size of my stomach and telling me I’m too fat and that if I don’t eat less I’ll end up with diabetes like her last cat, Ra. She tries to put me off by telling me that she had to put needles in him twice a day for 9 years to control his diabetes and how all her friends asked ‘When is she expecting kittens?’ I don’t believe it. My constitution, as a Main Coon mix, is to be a very big cat and especially since I was living in the bush for several years after my previous owner abandoned me. I became a huge tom cat. I won’t tell you why they abandoned me, will leave that up to your imagination.

As to my great physical beauty, I have huge paws like a tiger with long black fur growing between my toes. I have long white fur growing inside my ears that sometimes points up giving me the appearance of a bobcat. My tail is my pride and joy – bushy and sassy. My head is large and wide with green eyes. I have stripey tabby markings from grey to black and white under my chin. Handsome, eh?

The human tells her friends that for years she saw me streaking through the bush with bushy tail straight as an arrow flying behind me and always thought to herself ‘One day I’m going to catch that feral cat’. She doesn’t like the idea of cats in the bush killing native birds or anything but how else are we to survive? It’s not our fault that human owners throw us away, unwanted. We would rather be in a nice safe, warm house being fed our favourite foods instead of having to eat furry creatures (I just hate getting fur stuck in my throat) including part of their elimination canal. Yuck. Give me a can of human-grade salmon anytime.

Speaking of food again, the human is a pretty good hunter herself. I don’t know how she does it but she comes home with a big bag full of organic chicken necks and chicken breasts. No feathers, no grisly, stinky or bloody bits – just nice, clean, fresh, raw chicken meat. I follow her outside when we go for walks (my only escape from the verandah enclosure) but I don’t see her kill any chickens or anything for that matter. She doesn’t carry knives and she doesn’t have sharp claws so how does she do it? Some things will always be a mystery to our species about humans.

The media and various government websites clearly and openly qualifying native kangaroos and possums as 'pest animals' needing to be 'culled'. But what if they aren't pests at all? The law protects those who kill protected native species under certain conditions but could there be non-lethal ways of dealing with the problem? Could this be part of a national strategy to drive the nails deeper into our native animals' collective coffins? It is no wonder we have the world's worst record for mammal extinctions with government attitudes like this.

On 26 October, 2010 in the Banyule and Nillumbik Weekly (1) there was an article about how kangaroos in Plenty Gorge in Greensborough, the North-Eastern suburbs in Melbourne are becoming a problem.

In this article the Invasive Animals Co-operative Research Centre says:-

“Kangaroos can cause serious damage to farm fences and crops, scare domestic livestock, such as cows and sheep, and cause motor vehicle accidents. Controlling numbers is essential for safety and productivity.

‘‘Kangaroos can also cause environmental damage, especially if they are confined on reserved land and their numbers are allowed to increase unchecked. Contraceptives may be useful for controlling kangaroo populations in confined areas or in the peri-urban area. However, much more work is required, including an assessment of their biological and ecological impacts, before they could be considered,’’ the centre’s latest report states."

In my mind many questions arise. Let’s examine all these claims to see if they are true:-

1. Invasive Animals?
What on earth is the Invasive Animals Co-operative Research Centre doing commenting on a non-invasive animal? Kangaroos are native animals and by definition are NOT invasive, exotic or feral. Why did this newspaper choose to quote from this organization and not the Department of Environment?

Invasive Species (IUCN definition):

Invasive species are organisms (usually transported by humans) which successfully establish themselves in, and then overcome, otherwise intact, pre-existing native ecosystems.

According to Dept Env website, kangaroos are not invasive species either.

2. Destruction to the Environment?
It is well known that cows and sheep, being hoofed, cause massive soil erosion and destruction of soil ecosystems, pollute the air, soil, waterways, contribute to deforestation and biodiversity loss and the drought. In short they are turning this country into a desert. So why are kangaroos being scapegoated for causing environmental damage when it is not the truth?

3. Damage to Fences?
If kangaroos cause damage to fences, isn’t it time farmers erected ‘kangaroo-proof fencing’ so that kangaroos do not enter farms and do not get entangled in barbed wire fences. What about the damage fences cause kangaroos, does it ever occur to them that fences are a worse hazard to kangaroos than kangaroos to fences? And what about the fact that livestock routinely damage fences? Should we cull livestock because they damage their own fences?

4. Damage to Crops/Competition with Livestock

According to CSIRO kangaroos hardly ever visit wheat farms. According to the Dept of Environment grazing pressure of kangaroos is very small 1-8% compared to livestock (92-99%). (2)

It is a proven fact that kangaroos do not eat crops (8). Graziers will normally budget 10 litres of water per day for sheep which doubles in hot dry summers. An average size kangaroo of say 25kg only needs only 1 litre of water per day to survive. (Hume 1999).

According to the CSIRO, kangaroos do not compete with sheep (3).

5. Scaring Livestock?
As for scaring livestock, it’s more likely that kangaroos would be scared by livestock. Kangaroos do not attack cows and sheep - they are herbivores after all.

6. Causing Motor Vehicle Accidents?
It would be fair to say that humans cause motor accidents as equally as kangaroos. We are in their territory after all. In many ways we could prevent these motor accidents.

a) Why aren’t there overpasses or underpasses for wildlife on main roads?
b) Why aren’t there wildlife corridors for kangaroos to traverse to their habitat which we continually carve up as if the land is ours, not theirs? Surely we are the ones to blame for not accommodating them and their needs?
c) Why don’t more motorists slow down when they see kangaroos by the roadside, especially at dusk and dawn?
d) Why don’t more cars have shoo-roo devices attached to them emitting a high-pitched noise to alert the kangaroo of the approach of their vehicle?

Aren’t we equally responsible for all the motor vehicle accidents involving kangaroos? How many kangaroos and other animals die every day and suffer in agony compared to the number of humans losing their life as a result of these accidents? Aren’t we being a trifle selfish (anthropocentric) here?

7. Controlling Populations?
The Invasive Animals Co-operative Research Centre says it’s important to control kangaroo numbers. Well isn’t it time we controlled our own populations? Human overpopulation at 7 billion is certainly overdue for a bit of controlling! What a joke that we should be controlling a native species (and white man is feral to Australia remember) when we can’t even control our own. Perhaps compulsory contraception of humans would be a good start? Yet the Department of Sustainability and the Environment (DSE) issues permits for landowners to ‘cull’ kangaroos on their property. Obviously we live in a society where it is permissible to kill ‘protected’ native animals when people are unwilling to find other win-win solutions to a perceived threat.

8. Threat to Communities or Public Health?
The DSE spokesman Nick Talbot says

“The permit system is necessary because animals can …. pose a direct threat to communities or public health,’’

I have never heard of kangaroos attacking people unless they were walking a dog off the leash. That is understandable as those kangaroos were most likely only trying to protect their mob. If people would have their dogs on a leash at all times, including on their properties, such a situation would never arise. Herbivores are not aggressive unless there is a life-threatening situation.

As for public health, eating kangaroo meat (such as what is for sale in supermarkets around Australia) would be far more of a public health risk than having them hop around outside. It’s a joke that DSE can talk about public health in this way when kangaroo meat, being game meat, is full of parasites and zoonotic diseases (4).

9. Is it Humane to Kill a Healthy Animal?
According to DSE a condition of a permit is that humane methods of destruction are used. However, we know that this is not always the case. Not all landowners are skilled in the use of firearms and many kangaroos will not be humanely shot in the head. Anyone can get a gun and a permit without the ability to hit a target. Wildlife carers have to attend to animals with faces blown off, limbs missing, orphaned joeys. Yet DSE does not regard relocation as an option, which seems infinitely more humane to me. Given a choice between death and a new place to live, what would you choose? Is killing a perfectly healthy animal because it’s in our way humane? Or is there a better solution?

In view of the above points, how can anyone refer to kangaroos as a pest?

Definition of ‘Pest’

The website http://www.feral.org.au states the definition of ‘pest’ as:

A pest is an animal that causes significant damage to a valued resource. The pest status of an animal can change with time, between areas or according to the perception of the assessor. What might be one persons pest might be another’s valued resource. Native animals such as kangaroos and possums can be a pest in some situations.

By that definition, humans are pests because we cause significant damage to the most valued resource of all – our environment. We have destroyed 75% of our forests. Billions of native animals have died in the process. We have polluted waterways and sucked them dry, blasting all the fish out of the water.

We have ignored the unique biological and ecological role our native animals have to play in their NATURAL environment, which we are taking from them. To native animals we, with our bulldozers, concrete, trucks and cars, would be the biggest pest of all, worse than hoardes of dingoes, pythons, feral dogs and cats, poisonous toads, predatorial eagles put together. In fact WE are the nightmare to them! They flee from us on sight and no wonder.

According to http://www.feralfocus.org.au

The word 'pest' is generally used to describe an animal that causes serious damage to a valued resource. Such a pest may be destructive, a nuisance, noisy or simply not wanted. A pest may be an animal that was originally introduced by humans to new lands - this is particularly the case in Australia. Or, it may be a native animal such as a kangaroo, possum or parrot.

It is important to note that people decide whether an animal is a pest. What is one person's pest may be a valuable resource to another. For example, recreational hunters and meat processors may regard the feral pig as a valued resource rather than a pest. Others believe that feral pigs are a threat to the environment and agriculture. Such diversity of opinion is one of the main reasons that pest control has had varying success.

Strictly a feral animal is a non-native animal that has escaped from captivity and established a self-sustaining population independent of humans. Hence wild horses, pigs and cats are feral, while foxes and rabbits are not as these latter two animals were deliberately released to establish wild populations. However, the word is now generally applied to ‘any non-native animal that causes serious damage to human interests’

How convenient… for humans that is!

Definition of ‘Feral’

According to http://www.feral.org.au:

What is a feral animal? Strictly a feral animal is a non-native animal that has escaped from captivity and established a self-sustaining population independent of humans. Hence wild horses, pigs and cats are feral, while foxes and rabbits are not as these latter two animals were deliberately released to establish wild populations. However, the word is now generally applied to any non-native animal that causes serious damage to human interests, and is how the word is used in this web site.

Man has encroached native, endemic species' natural habitat, it would make more sense to refer to us as the 'ferals' in this scenario! Does that mean we should be culled, since we are a non native species infiltrating an area outside our natural range?

What is an exotic animal?

An exotic animal is an animal that is outside its natural range. It may be an animal that has been introduced to Australia or New Zealand from another country, or it may be an animal that has been translocated to another part of Australia or New Zealand. For example kookaburras have been introduced to south-west Western Australia.

Our National Emblem

Since kangaroos are on our national emblem and proudly displayed by Australian companies, airlines, rugby teams etc. and since we regard kangaroos as pests, how does that auger for our overseas images? Guess it affirms that we are a PEST WORSHIPPING nation?

AT ONE POINT THIS WEBSITE CLASSIFIED KANGAROOS AS 'FERAL' UNTIL THEY WERE INUNDATED WITH LETTERS! AFTERWARDS, ALL REFERENCES TO KANGAROOS BEING FERAL WERE REMOVED BUT THEY WERE STILL LISTED AS PESTS ON THE WWW.FERAL.ORG.AU WEBSITE. WHY ARE THEY THERE AT ALL WE ASK?

Since we classify kangaroos as ‘pests’, all those logos we use to flog things to other countries and to promote our country with our Coat of Arms, must by interpretation declare that our goods and our image is, indeed, a pest.

It is one thing to use something for largesse, another to appreciate its true worth.
Time for some reassessment methinks.

It is outrageous that government websites such as www.feral.org.au should list kangaroos and possums native to Australia at all let alone as pests.

Kangaroo Shooting Unsustainable

Referring to native animals as ‘pests’ is what drives local and complete extinctions, as any scientist well knows. Certainly it is more and more recognised by landowners and by ecologists and wildlife experts that the larger macropods such as Eastern Grey and Red kangaroos are disappearing from the landscape except in few pockets where their habitat and landowners allow them to exist.

Even the commercial 'culling' program in NSW lists densities of the 'common' Eastern Grey that are in fact scientifically quasi-extinct (5). The shooting of 15% of this species is unsustainable when consideration is given to actual kangaroo population biology.

Shooters do not limit themselves to shooting 15% of a local population. Local populations and mobs are in fact shot in entirety with the 15% quota only being applied as a whole to the state itself. This is why shooters are not meeting their quotas – as the populations do not exist. This is also why, in rural and regional areas, whole landscapes are being emptied of kangaroos - as ecologists doing field work in central and western NSW are noticing.

Certainly the National Parks and Wildlife Service in NSW does not check landowners’ claims of hundreds of kangaroos needing to be shot under occupier licenses. Rangers have in fact explicitly admitted that they don’t ask questions as the issuing of licenses are a ‘public relations exercise’. There is in fact no central collation of the numbers of kangaroos that are shot under s.121 licences in NSW. This means no baseline data or any idea of the numbers of kangaroos shot outside the newer commercial culling program has thus ever existed.

Further, the Kangaroo Management Program itself does not assert that commercial shooting is to protect the landscape from damage. It is a program driven by the kangaroo industry.

If you check and analyse the official surveyed population numbers and actual reports on government websites (6), you will see their numbers have plummeted between 40-80% across regions since 2001. As a whole, populations have crashed by an average of 50% across the state since 2001 – despite correction factors multiplying actual counts by higher numbers and despite population figures including whole new counted areas in the 2009 census.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics - Bureau of Rural Sciences (ABARE-BRS, formally BRS) administers the Australian Pest Animal Research Program (APARP) which engages in pest animal management issues. It is through this program that ABARE-BRS supported the development of the website feral.org.au.

ABARE says that native animals such as kangaroos and possums can be a pest in some situations as they cause significant damage to valued resources such as the environment or agriculture (e.g. possums in New Zealand). But that does not mean that native animals should be referred to on a feral animal website!

Conclusion

I utterly condemn the inclusion of native animals on a website about ‘pest’ animals, paid for by taxpayers’ dollars, using information that has not been tested or critiqued by independent sources.

Since Australia has the worst reputation in the world for mammal extinctions especially in the last 230 years, surely it means humans are the biggest pest to biodiversity as well as the environment in every aspect?

It's well and truly time we Australians stopped treating our native animals like vermin and learned to respect our national icon, at least as much as overseas visitors do. Premier Keneally (7) has acknowledged that our iconic kangaroos and koalas hold the key to a revival of tourism in Australia. So why don't the laws change to give them the protection they and their habitat so desperately needs? I only hope she is serious and not saying it because Oprah Winfrey (who hails from her country of birth) happens to be touring here right now?

What can I do?

Write to the following people and voice your complaints about the government's attitude to and treatment of our national icon, the kangaroo and possums, who are also supposed to be 'protected.'

[email protected]
[email protected]

References
1. http://www.banyuleandnillumbikweekly.com.au/news/local/news/news-features/watch-out-roos-on-the-run/1978238.aspx?storypage=0
2. http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/162/index.html
3. http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/WR9740027.htm
4. http://www.nokangaroomeat.org
5. http://www.stopkangarookilling.org
6. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/population/index.html
7. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/its-time-to-get-real-on-tourism-says-nsw-premier-kristina-keneally/story-e6frf7l6-1225969554791
8. Arnold, G. “Can Kangaroos survive in the Wheat Belt?”, West Australia Journal of Agriculture, Vol 31, 1990

It's truly time that the Australian government, farmers and Australians everywhere realised the tremendous contribution kangaroos make to our ecosystem instead of shooting them on sight as vermin and scapegoating them as 'pests'.

We wonder why we are in the worst drought of 100 years, why we have out of control bushfires and climate change. Nobody seems to make the connection between chopping down trees (to create grazing pastures) which shade the land and keep it cool and higher temperatures. Or between soil erosion caused by hoofed livestock and the drying of the continent. Nobody seems to get that the worst pest in Australia is not kangaroo or rabbits, foxes, cats, cane toads but US HUMANS who are destroying habitat for the very native species that keep the ecosystem in balance, introducing feral animals that compete with natives, and on top of that treating native animals as inconveniently in the way of 'our' farmland, our roads, our cities etc.

The really sad fact is that Australia has the worst record of wildlife extinctions since the arrival of the early settlers in 1770, having wiped out 38% of our mammals and at the rate we are killing kangaroos in the world's largest massacre of land-based wildlife, they are on track to extinction too (see http://www.stopkangarookilling.org ).

Below are some of the reasons why kangaroos benefit our country and why we should want more of them, not less and why we urgently need to change our outmoded attitude.

1. Kangaroos lessen the possibility of bushfires by eating dry grass that ignites easily and in locations near trees that sheep and cattle cannot reach (by virtue of being fenced in).

2. Kangaroos' soft padded feet and long tail are integral to the ecological health of the land, as regenerators of native grasses. Any seedling that falls into the long-tapering footprint of the kangaroo is buried into the hole left by the toenail. Covered and with moisture concentrated at one point, the germinating seedling has a chance of survival. Their tail drags along behind them while they are grazing, pressing the ground, rolling seeds into the earth.

3. Kangaroos play an undeniable role in biological diversity and ecological integrity by virtue of the fact that they have lived in Australia for at least 16 million years (some say up to 60 million years), in harmony with the other species as per the law of interdependence.

4. Kangaroo urine and faeces is a natural fertilizer essential to the health of the soil. Many species depend on the kangaroo for this reason. Their waste is not high in nitrogen like livestock waste which seriously pollutes ground and surface water. (Reference: http://milk.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=001056 ).

5. Unlike the livestock industry, Kangaroos do not degrade the environment by:

a) producing virtually no methane greenhouse gases through exhaling and eructation. The hydrogen by product of fermentation is instead converted into acetate, which is then used to provide further energy. The greenhouse gas effect of methane is 23 times greater than that of carbon dioxide. However, the greenhouse gases from the livestock industry is 18% total emissions (which exceeds the entire transport sector at 14%).

b) requiring massive quantities of water as with cows. Kangaroos have slender noses with a long narrow tongue that can lap water from sources that broad nosed livestock cannot even get to or would find unacceptable. (Reference: David Croft, p.238-9, Kangaroo Myths and Realities).

c) causing soil erosion, loss of soil nutrients and soil ecosystems leading to soil desertification. Kangaroos are not hoofed animals (like livestock) that compact the soil and cause soil problems.

d) destroying wildlife (the livestock industry shoots native animals which it regards as pests)

e) destroying trees or habitat of other species

f) contributing to the eutrophication and acidification of water and the ocean.

g) excessive grazing. Kangaroos' grazing pressure is only 1-8% (ref: (Reference:http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/162/index.html ). The rest of the grazing pressure is mainly cows and sheep.

h) producing massive lagoons of excrement.

(References for all the above environmental effects of the livestock industry: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html )

************

Kangaroos have intrinsic value and are perfectly adapted to their environment. The more kangaroos, the more biodiversity in Australia. However governments are now claiming that kangaroos overgraze or threaten endangered species, even though there are no published articles in peer reviewed journals proving this scientifically.

Based on this junk 'science' thousands of kangaroos are being killed, most notably in Canberra, the nation's capital. Last year in Canberra, at a disused naval base, 514 healthy kangaroos were cruelly killed on the grounds that they were overgrazing and a threat to several species such as the legless striped lizard and the Golden Sun Moth and Ginninderra peppergrass. Never mind the cows grazing in the adjoining paddock, overgrazing and threatening the same species that would be perfectly capable of migrating over the fence. Never mind damage to the same species as a result of the remediation process that occurred after the kangaroos were dispensed with as contractors hauled out what was revealed as toxic soil that was contaminating groundwater as far as Ginninderra Lake. Never mind the threat to people living in the adjoining housing estates of these same toxins blowing in the wind and entering the groundwater.

In May 2009 no less than 7000 kangaroos were killed at Majura, another training base in Canberra, on the same specious grounds - overgrazing - again without proof, without even counting the population there, and without any attempt to relocate them.

Then barely a month or so passed and several hundred were killed at Canberra's Nature Park 'Callum Brae' on the grounds of 'overgrazing'. Never mind that there were rabbits and livestock grazing there whose grazing pressure far exceeds that of kangaroos whose grazing pressure is only 1-8% compared to cows and sheep.

I call for a revolution in consciousness in recognising the importance of maintaining a diversity of native species not only for the animals but for us as well. If humans think they can survive without biodiversity, well, they have another thing coming.

HELP US GET TO 10,000 SIGNATURES! THANKS.