Professor Archer

Authorities are bracing in northern Australia for an influx of protesters representing Gouldian finch societies and breeders throughout the globe. Police fear a repeat of last years bloodbath when Mitchell hopping mouse advocates protested against further degradation of the marsupials habitat in South Australia.

Lovers of the popular aviary finch are incensed at the inaction of Australian governments in protecting what little habitat remains for the endangered bird. Gouldian finch societies from Australia, the USA, South Africa and many European countries have banded together to raise awareness of the damage that pastoral activities and modern fire regimes are doing to the birds habitat.

Australian Gouldian Finch Society spokesperson Terry Anderson has made an emotional plee to the Australian public to help fight for the remaining Gouldian finch habitat:

“There are only 2500 of these beautiful birds left in the wild…. All Australians have a responsibility to prevent this species from becoming extinct in its natural environment and we are here to remind them of that responsibility”

Police in Katherine, NT are expecting hundreds of protestors and are expected to use a zero tolerance policy after similar protests in South Australia last year resulted in 15 arrests and several police officers injured. Sgt Mackey of NT police states:

“Whilst the 2009 confrontations with South Australian police were instigated by breeders and owners of Mitchell’s hopping mice fighting for habitat protection… we must anticipate that the Gouldian Finch people are capable of the same emotionally driven violence that have made the hopping mouse advocates a household name”

Wildlife advocacy groups and other critics of Gouldian finch breeders claim that dwindling finch numbers are due in no small part to the aviary trade and poaching continues to be a problem as demand for the finch increases. Furthermore they claim that breeding of the finch involves colour and behaviour selection that does not mimic wild Gouldian finch populations. Terry Anderson refutes these claims:

“They’re just nit picking. If the Gouldian becomes extinct in the wild, we are the ones they will come running to”

Outspoken supporter of keeping native animals as pets Prof Mike Archer was (unusually) unavailable for comment.

Corellas are one of the most visible birds in many Australian cities, any proposal to cull their numbers inevitably causes some controversy. Like humans, they may be recent inhabitants of an area but are they occupying an environmental niche that we created ?

Recently an article published by the Wimmera Mail-Times regarding a proposed corella cull caught my attention. It’s not unusual for this subject to come up in just about any state in Australia as corellas seem to be popping up everywhere, don’t they? The article consists mainly of rhetoric coming from Horsham Councillor Gary Bird (yes that is his real name) and Cr Bernard Gross. Cr Bird calls for gun laws to be relaxed and field and game shooters to be allowed to join in a corella cull though he doesn’t want to paint a picture of the ol’ wild west. Cr Gross isn’t as shy about the wild west theme, it would seem that “shoot outs” were used to keep numbers down when he was a boy. Along with damaging property and the environment, corellas are also accused of predating on other birds by Horsham Mayor Michael Ryan. To add fuel to the fire, it seems these corellas aren’t from these parts anyway….. they’re from out west, Western Australia to be precise.

These corellas aren't from these parts!

Longbill showing off his assets

So who are these pesky, carnivorous, white-feathered invaders anyway? They appear to be little corellas, a species that appears to originate from the arid and semi-arid regions of inland Australia. Much like kangaroos, their original range before white settlement is subject to debate. Some say that little corellas are expanding coastward in many parts of Australia, others that aviary releases are increasing their range. I would suggest however that the little corellas found in Horsham, Victoria originate from somewhere a lot closer than Western Australia. I would also suggest that the mayor of Horsham check his facts regarding their carnivorous nature. Perhaps he is getting confused with the corellas tendency to compete with other birds over nesting sites. The statements made about the little corella in Horsham however, could be classified as restrained in comparison to the propaganda coming out of Old Noarlunga, South Australia in 2008. A suggestion is made that the birds may have escaped from aviaries, its origin (via DNA testing) could possibly trace it back to the Philipines. The little corella seems to be getting further and further from “home” all the time.

Which corella?

The corella issue crops up commonly in urban areas such as the proposed cull in Busselton, Western Australia as pointed out by RichB In WA the term “corella” gets used very loosely by local government to describe any white parrot they deem to be a nuisance. The corella species that inhabit Perth currently are not endemic to the area as many pro-culling residents are quick to point out, though there appears to be the occasional sighting of Butler corellas (the northern subspecies of the western longbill corella). What is not so commonly known is that the endangered Muir’s corella (another subspecies of western longbill corella) were originally found in the Perth area. Unfortunately they disappeared over 100 years ago and can now only be found in a small area deep in the southwest of WA. Loss of habitat, shooting and poisoning appear to be the main reason for their demise in the Perth area and other south west regions (including Busselton). As yet I have not heard any mention of a possible re-introduction of Muir’s corellas in Perth to accompany the eradication of the little corella and (eastern) longbill corella. Given that the Muir corella is larger than both of the introduced species and displays very similar behaviour ie. Active, noisy and conspicuous, I wonder how well received this bird would be.

Culling for convenience

Enjoying a few drinks, this time they left the garden hose alone

Attempts to demonise a bird species by claiming it’s not endemic to the area often occurs during proposed culls particularly in urban areas. In Perth there have been claims that Australian ravens are not endemic to our coastal strip by those campaigning for culling. The Perth suburb of Mosman Park however needed no such justification to get government approval for their own raven cull In this case the persistence of several vocal ratepayers in Mosman Park appeared to be reason enough to go ahead with the cull. Other wildlife culls proceed as a matter of routine such as the annual killing of endemic wood ducks at Burswood Casino Golf Course. . In this case Burswood management deemed (as they do every year) that the resident wood duck population was too large…. This is a similar argument used by those requesting kangaroo culls in urban areas such as the proposed cull at Preston Beach Golf Club

Where have the natural predators gone?

Corellas are killed in their thousands in agricultural areas, obviously these culls don’t attract the same sort of attention as those in the city. A natural way of keeping corella numbers down is via the predation by raptors such as the peregrine falcon and the wedge tailed eagle. Unfortunately these birds have also been blasted out of the sky, poisoned directly or indirectly or have lost most of their habitat due to land clearing, the wedge tailed eagle is still listed as an agricultural pest in Western Australia to this day. Understandably there are those who question whether humans will ever evolve beyond the “go for the gun” mentality in attempting to control or improve our environment. It does seem however that using raptors to scare away corellas is becoming more popular, I know of a landowner who periodically uses (captive) goshawks for this purpose.

Role of the pet industry and the FATE program

No corella discussion would be complete without mention of the pet industry’s contribution to the current range of corella species. It is widely accepted that the presence of little corellas and (in most cases) long billed corellas in our major cities is due to aviary releases / escapes. If we are trying to manage these bird populations why is it that any individual (in WA at least) can walk into a pet store and buy one of these birds? In WA you can own up to 10 corellas without having a permit. There is some control attempted at the local government level but this message is lost amongst the chit-chat captive corellas engage us with in pet stores. In WA rainbow lorikeets are freely available as pets even as this introduced bird (by aviary release/escape) begins to penetrate the jarrah forests in Perth’s hills in direct competition with endemic birds such as the red capped and twenty eight parrot. Incidentally, endemic birds are also available at bird shops whether they are listed as agricultural pests or endangered (or both) It is very disturbing to find birds such as endangered black cockatoos in specialist bird shops with price tags going into tens of thousands of dollars. Whilst these birds may have been hand reared and are therefore not releasable into the wild, there is no doubt the prices commanded by these rare birds surely promotes illegal activity in the bird trade to maintain supply. Professor Mike Archer’s Future of Australia’s Threatened Ecosystems (FATE) program is promoting the use of native animals as pets, one only has to look at the pet bird industry to appreciate the potential damage this practice can inflict both environmentally and on the species involved. Placing a value on a native species tantamount to its decline in wild populations particularly if that value is high. Inevitably, a commercially valued species is subject to illegal activities. The collecting of eggs from species such as the peregrine falcon, wedge tailed eagle and Muir’s corella are testament to this.

A question to any West Australian readers: Which kangaroo was most commonly targeted by hunters in the mid to late 1920's? ... Well I'm being a bit unfair, the answer isn't a kangaroo at all as the answer is the western brush (or black gloved) wallaby. Around that period western brush wallaby skins were exported in higher numbers than red kangaroo or western grey skins. Which species is exploited most commonly these days? Well I can tell you it isn't the western brush wallaby, they are now listed as near-vulnerable. To the vast majority of Australians living in large cities the answer doesn't seem to matter anyway, the generic term "kangaroo" is often used when discussing anything macropod related. Kangaroo numbers being in "plague proportions" or the labelling of them as pests appears to apply to all of our larger marsupials.

Attempts to overcome Australians' reluctance to eat kangaroo meat

Red joey at foot

Over the last ten years or so the kangaroo industry, state and federal governments and organisations such as the FATE program have tried to shift public perception of the kangaroo image from pest to sustainable resource. They appear to have had very limited success. In doing this they have continued the tradition of grouping all of the exploited species under the kangaroo banner. Australians have been very reluctant to come to the party when it comes to eating kangaroos themselves, maybe it's got something to do with us viewing roo meat as something that is only fit for the dog. So what is the dog actually eating? Is it euro chunks? Diced eastern grey? Maybe minced Bennetts wallaby? The marketing of kangaroo meat for human consumption continues this trend. Why do you think that could be? Maybe it is easier for us to stomach roo meat when we don't have to put a face to it ... a sort of miscellaneous meat. Nevertheless a lot of us are still reluctant to dine on our national symbol. Overseas markets for kangaroo meat are notoriously unstable, for example : the Russian ban on roo meat imports last year, this may however be offset by the recent Chinese decision in favour of the kangaroo industry.

Eating kangaroo compatible with vegetarianism?

Of course there are many Australians who choose to be vegetarian/vegan. Often this choice of lifestyle is made based on several factors including personal health, animal welfare or viewing this diet as being more ecologically sustainable particularly in a warming climate. I would have thought that once an individual had made the choice to stop eating meat that right should be respected, it's not the choice for everybody but with the earth population rapidly approaching 7 billion people surely vegetarianism is not something we should discourage. To those involved in promoting the human consumption of kangaroo however, vegetarians represent a potential market. This was evident in the publication of an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last week when the term "kangatarian" was coined. The basic message is that vegetarians with animal welfare or environmental concerns should find kangaroo meat quite acceptable. This is due to the fact that kangaroos are killed humanely in the field and their presence on the Australian landscape ticks all the right environmental boxes. Surely this advertisement is the work of the Australian kangaroo industry, who else would recklessly attempt to add roo meat to the diet of a vegetarian? Well the university lecturer in this advertorial is Peter Ampt, the manager of the Future of Australia's Threatened Ecosystems program (FATE). The FATE program was the initiative of Professor Mike Archer whose book "Going Native" (now out-of-print) outlined the programs aims. Central to these aims was the phasing out of current agricultural/pastoral practices in favour of those utilising native animals and plants. The centrepiece (or stumbling block) for the program is the sustainable harvesting of kangaroos. Backing up Peter Ampt's claims is Sarah Doornbos, who is also involved in the FATE program though no mention is made of this.

The evidence contradicts claims of humane killing

Grey inpouch joey

It seems that a key part of their argument revolves around the humane killing of kangaroos as opposed to traditional livestock. This same tactic comes up again and again, a single bullet to the head is a clean, humane way of killing an animal. No argument there assuming that is always the case, the problem is that it's not that simple. Female kangaroos have joeys and those joeys depend on them for survival. The Code of practice for the humane shooting of kangaroos (or "the code") instructs kangaroo shooters to kill in-pouch joeys by crushing their skull or decapitation. In the field this equates to smashing their head against an object such as a towbar or just simply stomping on their skull. It is not only in-pouch joeys that are dependent on their mothers. For about a third of the time you can call a kangaroo a "joey" they have permanently exited the pouch, however they still require milk, protection and guidance from their mother. These little guys are the joeys-at-foot or ex-pouch joeys, they are the ones that stick their heads in their mother's pouch to obtain milk. This a key stage in the development of a kangaroo that usually lasts 120 – 220 days. The code directs shooters to kill these joeys by a single shot to the head, however these joeys tend to flee in terror when their mothers are shot. As kangaroos do not "adopt" other joeys in the wild their prospects for survival are very poor, most will likely starve to death or be taken by predators. How this can be classified as humane by Samantha Vine, Peter Ampt and Sarah Doornpos is to say the least, puzzling. I shudder to think what would come under the inhumane category, perhaps death by iron maiden?

Official Statistics

Of course the industry itself will counter this argument by claiming 80% of kangaroos shot are males. State kangaroo management data does not substantiate this figure. For example in New South Wales the long term average is 66.9%, in Queensland the figure appears to be somewhere in the mid 70's and in Western Australia the figure is close to 50%. There have even been years in WA when the figure has dropped as low as 47% such as 1993.

Scientific Debate?

The timing of this advertorial coincides with the proposed European Union ban on kangaroo product imports. John Kelly, the executive director of the Australian Kangaroo Industry has been busy defending the industry using claims such as the one mentioned above. He declares that this issue will ultimately be decided using scientific arguments. It is interesting that this scientific approach consists of misleading statistics and an online petition supporting the kangaroo harvest, John Kelly is the number one signatory and who is the organiser ... ? Professor Michael Archer.

The fate of a joey-at-foot also applies when its mother has been killed in a vehicle collision. A small joey may be observed returning to its mother several times on the roadside after her death. It makes for a very distressing scene, the joey will ususally attempt to wake the mother up by touching her and/or making sounds and may attempt to enter the pouch. If the mother had fallen victim to a kangaroo shooter, all that could be left behind are her head, forelimbs, tail, entrails, a discarded in-pouch joey and a lot of blood. Of course the skin-only shooter will leave behind the entire body ... minus skin of course ... what becomes of the dependant joey-at-foot returning to its mother now? This type of treatment would be unacceptable in the domestic livestock industry, how can anyone possibly classify the shooting of kangaroos as humane? In WA alone 30,000 joeys-at-foot were orphaned by the actions of commercial kangaroo shooters in 2007, that's about 80 joeys every night of the year. West Australian kangaroo kill figures are dwarfed by states such as Queensland where shooters killed over one and a half million kangaroos in the same year. It's very convenient for FATE or the kangaroo industry to withhold this information from those trying to make an informed decision on roo meat. The inhumane treatment of joeys occurs at night and often in very remote areas, visual footage is a rare thing. It's a shame that people such as those interviewed in this advertorial believe their agenda trumps any concerns about the kangaroo industry. Maybe it's just easier to misrepresent the truth when you're picking joey bones from your teeth.

Here is my letter to Professor Michael Archer, no reply forthcoming.

Dear Prof. Archer

I have read about the FATE program on your website and would like to share some comments.

Firstly, how can you consider this program to be helping conservation of kangaroos? How can 'sustainable use' apply to kangaroos when:

1. Their numbers have dropped up to 70% across the nation from 2001-2006 due to the drought and excess kangaroo 'culling' [1]?

2. Up to 80% females are killed. According to population experts killing 50% females is unsustainable [2]?

3. The report by The Australian Society for Kangaroos (a compilation of shocking facts from various government departments) clearly shows how kangaroos are on track to extinction. The fact that the biggest kangaroos have been shot out is proven by the fact that the average age of commercially killed kangaroos these days is only 2-3 years (21 kg) i.e. barely at reproductive age and just out of the pouch[3].

4. According to the Murray Darling Report, if kangaroos are killed in areas where there are less than 5 kangaroos per sq. km, that is a recipe for extinction. Yet kangaroos are being commercially killed in areas where there are less than 1 kangaroo per sq. km. [4].

Kangaroos are approaching, if not at, the tipping point beyond which kangaroos become extinct.

The FATE program will guarantee extinction for kangaroos. Entrusting the conservation of Australia's national icon to the very people who hate kangaroos the most (i.e. farmers) is like asking foxes to guard the proverbial hen house.

Australian government policy has already allowed 40% of native species to become extinct in a mere 220 years since the early settlers arrived. When are we going to wake up and stop this war against wildlife before it's too late?

White man's ecological footprint in Australia has been way too large - we are going through the 6th mass extinction of all species due to human beings' total lack of consideration for and understanding of the ecosystem in which we live. Australian government policy has already allowed 40% of native species to become extinct in a mere 220 years since the early settlers arrived. When are we going to wake up and stop this war against wildlife before it's too late?

Why would people come to Australia and spend $85 billion tourist dollars each year just to go to shopping malls, theme parks and zoos when those attractions exist in any other country?

It's time to end the ridiculous policy of making wildlife pay their way with their lives by becoming renewable resources to plunder for profit till none remain. If we don't become proper custodians of the land, we will lose our most precious treasure - our unique native animals. Why would people come to Australia and spend $85 billion tourist dollars each year just to go to shopping malls, theme parks and zoos when those attractions exist in any other country? What makes Australia special is our iconic wildlife, in the wild and in hordes!

What will happen when they become extinct? Shall we replace the kangaroo with a cow? Leaving an extinct animal on our national emblem would be too painful a reminder of our collective stupidity.

Professor Archer, with all due respect, do you really want to go down in history as the man who drove the last nail in the kangaroos' coffin? Kangaroos are the second most recognised international tourist symbol. We proudly bear them on our emblem and QANTAS jets fly all over the world with the image of a kangaroo on their tails. What will happen when they become extinct? Shall we replace the kangaroo with a cow? Leaving an extinct animal on our national emblem would be too painful a reminder of our collective stupidity. Perhaps now would be a good time to start contemplating what other animal should replace the kangaroo that is as popular and well known? Perhaps cane toads, foxes or how about concrete?

On Australia Day, today, we should be considering how to protect our national treasures, not eating them and feeding them to our dogs. The FATE program encouraging 'harvesting' of our native animals is a mistake of mammoth proportions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Menkit Prince

1. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/population/index.html
2. H.H.Lavery 'The Keepers'
3. www.stopkangarookilling.org
4. AAT Submission, General Administration Division, NSW District Registry, No. 535 of 2007 (exhibit 13).
Re Murray Darling Report on quasi extinction - www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com/nswaatappeal2008.html

HELP US GET TO 10,000 SIGNATURES - TELL YOUR FRIENDS!