On January 9, the Associated Press noted that in Australia, it's kangaroos, not whales, and those who want to manage them are white farmers, and state and national agricultural officials and wildlife managers. The plot of the story is the same, however, as animal rights groups object to the fact that the national Minister of the Environment, David Kemp, has raised the cull quota from 5.5 million in 2001 to 6.9 million animals for the year 2002. Government spokespersons noted that the new quota was reached with the help of a scientific committee, and is two million animals less than the 9 million animals called for by the individual state governments, who of course, are the closest to the farmers affected. Farmers are issued licenses to kill certain numbers of animals in order to protect crops and reserve grazing land for their sheep herds.

Animals Australia and The Wildlife Protection Association of Australia object to the new quotas on grounds that the kangaroo is the national symbol, and that this would be the largest slaughter ever. In addition, they claim that the hunt is driven by profit (the meat and leather are sold overseas) and that there is no need to manage these animals. According to the Associated Press, the government estimates that populations of only the four most common species, exceed 50 million kangaroos. There are some 60 different species in Australia. Therefore, the cull of 6.9 million would amount to considerably under 14% of the total. There will be lots of roos left to carry on the job of national icon.

IWMC notes that in this case, the government of Australia, concerned about the reaction of constituents to increasing numbers of pest animals, has made both a scientifically and politically rational decision that will maintain a healthy population of kangaroos, and satisfy the needs of farmers to protect their assets, while enabling them to recover some of their losses through the legitimate sale of the products of the cull. It would be unconscionable to waste the by-products of 6.9 million animals.

We applaud this fair and balanced management and sustainable use effort. IWMC now urges the Australian authorities to review their policy of objection to Japan's resumption of commercial whaling. That harvest is similarly justifiable on grounds of both scientific assessment and cultural and economic needs. There is no excuse for inconsistency between policies on abundant roos and policies on abundant whales, when human welfare and animal welfare would both be protected by monitored, sustainable use. A previous survey of the Australian people demonstrated that they would not object to the use of abundant minke whales for human food. Therefore, the imperialistic attitude of the Australian government on the matter of the resumption of commercial minke whaling, is politically inappropriate, even in Australia.