Is Australian wildlife fair game?
Key text
This topic is sponsored by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Is the growing commercial use of Australian wildlife compatible with good conservation?
While many people find putting a dollar value on our wildlife unpalatable, others have developed a taste for it. For example, the kangaroo industry – skins and meat for human consumption – is estimated to be worth around $200 million a year. The plant-based bushfoods industry, which markets products such as the Kakadu plum, roasted wattle seed and quandongs, was worth $14 million in 1996 and is growing rapidly.
And there’s more to it than food. Many Australian animals are popular as pets – reptile enthusiasts have been known to fork out more than $5000 for a single live green tree python, while overseas bird-keepers hardly squawk while paying $9000 for a red-tailed black cockatoo. The wildflower industry is also blooming, earning an estimated $50 million for growers in 2005.
The recent expansion in the commercial use of Australian wildlife has sparked a keen debate: will it lead to better conservation, or will it threaten the survival of species?
Harvesting, ranching and farming
Australian wildlife can be used in several different ways. Harvesting may be defined as the removal of wildlife living in a free-range wild population through the collection of plants or plant parts; the live capture of animals; the killing of animals; or the collection of eggs for immediate use. Well-known examples of harvesting are the felling of native trees, the kangaroo trade and mutton-birding on the islands of Bass Strait, but it also includes 'bush pick', which is the picking of seeds, flowers and fruits from wild-growing native plants.
Ranching is the taking of animals from the wild to raise in a controlled environment for subsequent use as wildlife products or as live animal displays. In the Northern Territory, for example, crocodile eggs are taken from nests in the wild. They are then hatched in captivity and the juveniles are raised before being killed for their leather and meat or sold to reptile parks and zoos.
Farming involves the breeding of wildlife or the cultivation of native plants in an enclosed environment such as a farm or nursery. So, although the original breeding stock was obtained from the wild, farmed plants or animals are not really ‘wildlife’ because they have been bred and raised in captivity. Farming is also distinguished from harvesting and ranching by an inevitable process of genetic ‘improvement’, whereby breeding stock is carefully selected to encourage desirable traits and to remove undesirable ones. This means that, over time, farmed plants and animals may become considerably different from their wild ancestors. Many Australian native plants are already being farmed, including tea tree, hoop pine, quandong, macadamia (in 2005 the macadamia industry was worth around $120 million a year) and a host of wildflower species both for the cut-flower industry and for garden plantings. Some animals, most notably the emu, are also farmed.
The debate
The commercial use of wildlife carries some conservation risks as well as some potential benefits. A vigorous debate has sprung up among conservationists, scientists, the animal welfare lobby, government departments and entrepreneurs.
Over-use
Those opposed to wildlife harvesting and ranching say that the use of wild species will lead to their decline and possible extinction. This has occurred in Australia: over-fishing has led to a decline in populations of orange roughy and abalone and in the 1920s the toolache wallaby was hunted to extinction. In fact, of the 500 animal extinctions estimated to have occurred worldwide in the last 400 years, hunting is blamed for around 23 per cent of them.
But advocates say that with careful management it should be possible to harvest wild animals without precipitating population declines. Moreover these advocates say that by providing a monetary value to species – the 'use them or lose them' concept – people who might otherwise over-exploit particular species or destroy their habitat gain an incentive to conserve them and use them wisely.
One of the main threats to wildlife in Australia is the clearing of habitat, much of which is carried out on private or leasehold land. Individual farmers, pastoralists and developers clear native vegetation for many reasons, but predominantly they do so in order to put the land to more ‘productive’ uses. Suppose they were able to make money from wildlife? Advocates suggest that many landholders may start conserving habitat if they were able to exploit their wildlife for commercial gain. Others disagree: it might make more economic sense, they say, to over-exploit such resources for a quick profit that could then be reinvested in some other venture. It could be a case of 'use them AND lose them'.
Non-target species
Another risk is the effect of harvesting and ranching on non-target species. For example, the extraction of a particular plant or animal may involve the use of vehicles in sensitive habitat, or might lead to the spread of weeds or fungal diseases. The reduction in numbers of one species might have ‘knock-on’ effects for other non-target species by, for example, making them more prone to predation.
Competition and gene pool contamination
Some conservation groups suggest that harvesting and ranching will inevitably lead to farming, in which formerly wild animals and plants are ‘domesticated’. Should these genetically ‘improved’ organisms escape into the wild, they might compete for habitat with the wild population or change its genetic make-up by interbreeding.
Conversely, some scientists argue that farming with native Australian plants and animals would be more ecologically sustainable than present agricultural systems. This is because native species are adapted to Australia’s poor soils and highly variable rainfall and therefore make best use of available nutrients and moisture without damaging the environment. Whether native species would provide sufficient return to the landholder is unclear.
Farming might help resolve some conflicts over the use of wildlife. For example, many conservationists believe that the harvesting of native forests for timber degrades ecological and other values and threatens biodiversity, although the timber industry denies this. An increase in tree 'farming' – plantations of native and exotic tree species – might provide a solution. In Queensland, for example, conservationists, the timber industry and the Queensland government signed an agreement in 1999 to phase out native forest harvesting, coupled with an increase in plantations to meet the needs of industry.
Poaching and smuggling
The illegal taking of organisms from the wild – poaching – can have a deleterious effect on wildlife populations. In a way, the existence of poaching proves that certain wild species already have a monetary value. The smuggling of Australian birds, reptiles and, to a lesser extent, plants to national and international black markets is reputed to be big business.
People opposed to the commercial use of wildlife say that legalising some operations will increase the impact of illegal activities because hardened poachers will focus their attention on very rare species not available legally. It may be difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal specimens, making it harder to police the trade effectively. And the legalisation of an Australian wildlife trade might increase demand, leading to an increase in poaching activities and the taking of an unsustainable number of organisms from the wild.
But here, too, there are counter-arguments. For example, permitting the export and local sale of native plants and animals bred in captivity might eliminate the financial incentive to take from the wild. This would apply particularly to those species that could be bred in captivity more cheaply than they could be obtained from the wild.
The case of ‘superabundant’ species
Another argument in favour of the commercial use of wildlife concerns so-called ‘superabundant’ species. These are native animals – including some cockatoo and kangaroo species – that have benefited from the advent of agriculture in Australia and are now prospering to the extent that they are sometimes regarded as pests. Why not turn a problem into an asset? The commercial use of superabundant wildlife could simultaneously reduce the damage they cause to agriculture and provide a resource for a new industry. Such a scheme might also provide extra funds for monitoring and supervision to ensure that culling quotas are maintained at a sustainable level (Box 1: Kangaroo counting).
Issues of management
The arguments for and against wildlife harvesting often come back to whether harvesting can be maintained in the long term. After all, the modern history of humans versus wildlife mostly shows that wildlife declines as human influence increases. But many wildlife managers in Australia maintain that sustainable harvesting is technically possible – one of the key challenges, they say, is to harness the economic and social forces that might otherwise act destructively. Ensuring that resource owners see an economic benefit in a well-managed wildlife trade is one of the most important elements of this. Box 2: Principles relevant to the harvesting of native species sets out some principles developed by wildlife managers and scientists to help ensure the responsible use of Australian wildlife.
The future for native plants and animals
The commercial use of Australian native plants and animals will almost certainly continue to grow. Some products, such as bushfoods, are capturing the imagination of connoisseurs worldwide. Others are more controversial and will benefit from a continued, informed debate. All sides agree that Australian wildlife is precious: for its ecological role, for its place in Australian culture, and for its own sake. If we are to use it, the main thing is that we use it wisely.
Page updated May 2008.