ANIMAL JUSTICE PARTY KANGAROO REPORT 22/5/13

… a better life for all

Mrs K Gallagher
Chief Minister

ACT Government
GPO Box 1020
Canberra ACT 2600

Postal address:

PO Box 1010
Strawberry Hills NSW

Email: info@animaljusticeparty.org

Web: www.animaljusticeparty .org

22 May 2013

cc Mr S Rattenbury

ACT Minister for Territory and Municipal Services

Chief Minister

A Moratorium on Kangaroo Killing in the ACT

The Animal Justice Party of Australia opposes the killing of kangaroos in the ACT by
your Government on three grounds: a) there is a serious decline in kangaroo numbers across the
ACT as a whole, and on its nature reserves, with numbers drastically lower than the levels your
Government has itself advocated were needed to sustain its grasslands and its kangaroo
population, b) the killing program your Government has imposed involves gross animal cruelty
ofthe most grotesque kind, and c) the availability of successful ethical no–harm alternatives
and expertise to implement them, including experience within the ACT, in situations where
kangaroo habitat has been significantly compromised. At a minimum, the AJP calls for a
moratorium on the killing of kangaroos until these matters are more properly considered by
your Government.

Last year, ACT Greens MLA Mr Rattenbury, now one of your Ministers, said he would
welcome independent research into estimates of kangaroo numbers in ACT nature reserves.
This research is nearing completion and early results have already been given to Mr
Rattenbury. You and Mr Rattenbury have also in the past been presented with autopsy
evidence (from a highly respected forensic wildlife veterinarian) of severe brutality resulting
from the Government’s killing program last year. The availability and success of no-harm
alternatives such as translocation, including in the ACT and more widely, has also been brought
to the attention of both you and Mr Rattenbury.

We are disturbed now to read in The Guardian newspaper that Greens Minister Mr
Rattenbury has said: ‘Without a predator, kangaroos have increased their abundance and have a
detrimental impact on the rest ofthe ecosystem’ , and ‘the Greens have not opposed that cull’. If
Mr Rattenbury has peer–reviewed and authoritative evidence that kangaroos have a detrimental
impact on the ecosystem why have we never been able to see it and have it independently
scrutinised? Where is the evidence of apparent ecosystem improvement from the previous four

years of kangaroo killing? This has been asked for many times and has never been
forthcoming. Clearly, Mr Rattenbury and the ACT Government are conveniently choosing to
ignore human ‘predation’ (housing and commercial development, killing programs) and their
vehicles and guns, wire fencing, out-of- control dogs and degraded habitat due to weed
infestation. The chance of a newborn kangaroo infant reaching maturity is now less than 20 per
cent. If significant public funds are being spent on killing kangaroos to supposedly improve the
local ecosystem, the public needs to be able to scrutinise the results of this expenditure.

Mr Rattenbury, the ACT Greens and your Government have supported the brutal killing
of kangaroos for four years. This is just one of many reasons why this country desperately
needs an Animal Justice Party so that animals have an honest and passionate voice in this
country’s parliaments where decisions are made that impact on their wellbeing. This is the
reason why the AJP is standing ten candidates in the forthcoming federal election on September
14, including for the Senate in the ACT, and why it will contest all jurisdictional elections,
including in the ACT, from now on.

Attached (Attachment 1) you will see evidence from respected consulting wildlife
ecologist Ray Mjadwesch, author of the highly influential 2011 report: Nomination to List the
Large Macropods as Threatened Species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995. Mjadwesch says the numbers of kangaroos in the ACT are far from abundant and have
plummeted by around 75 per cent since white settlement. Indeed, there are now areas across
the ACT where kangaroos are locally extinct, or are threatened with local extinction.

Mjadwesch’s analysis concludes:

• ‘28.3 per cent ofthe ACT is unsuitable habitat for Eastern Grey Kangaroos (EGKs) on
account of steep terrain, incorrect vegetation types etc.

• Eastern Grey Kangaroos are extinct in 20.5 per cent ofthe ACT, on account of human
occupation (city and suburban areas, and heavily modified rural landscapes)

• Kangaroos are under pressure across 29.9 per cent of the ACT, from agriculture (loss of
habitat and shooting), shooting in nature reserves, and from the softwood industry
(loss/disruption of habitat)

• Kangaroo habitat in which EGKs are effectively conserved now occupies only 21.3 per
cent of Australia’s capital territory, down from 71.7 per cent of the ACT in 1788.’

This data–supported evidence stands in stark contrast to the ACT Government‘s own data
and Mr Rattenbury’s statements suggesting ‘abundance’. There is no abundance of kangaroos
in the ACT. It is an urban myth perpetuated by those with a poor regard for our nation’s iconic
wildlife. For this reason alone there is serious cause for concern and a need for a moratorium on
killing kangaroos to enable fuller investigation.

On Mr Rattenbury’s invitation last year, ACT citizens concerned about its wildlife have
been undertaking independent kangaroo counts on Canberra’s nature reserves, on which the
ACT Government killing program has been implemented in recent years. Ecologist Ray
Mjadwesch has provided instruction to this group of concerned citizens. Information about
previous Canberra killing programs under FOI suggest the methodology of kangaroo counting
used by ACT Government officials is superficial and highly inaccurate, with gross
exaggeration. Additional advice on vegetation cover has also been obtained by those carrying
out the independent community science kangaroo counts. The four teams of ACT citizens
concerned about Canberra’s wildlife have used GPS, compasses, range finders and their
particular knowledge of kangaroo behaviour to examine numbers of kangaroos and vegetation
on 11 nature reserves at various times throughout the day in various weather conditions, to be
sure that many of the typical influencing variables are accounted for. A total of 43 separate
surveys were undertaken across the 11 reserves by ACT citizens concerned about Canberra‘s
wildlife. Detailed reports on the habitat condition of every nature reserve compiled by these
teams are currently being completed.

While the final write–up of research on the 11 nature reserves is not quite complete, the
attached table (Attachment 2) gives an indication of kangaroo densities based on the survey
work completed. This data, using the higher–level count estimate figures from the four teams,
shows alarmingly low kangaroo densities, giving rise to concern that at these levels there will
be no sustainability in kangaroo numbers and they will decline to mere remnant levels at best,
given the many other threats to their habitat and movement. It is important to be aware that
kangaroos are highly stressed animals and the ACT citizens concerned about Canberra’s
wildlife all noted in their survey work the differing behaviour on those reserves where killing
and harassment of kangaroos has occurred. Post-traumatic stress is a significant determinant in
reduced wildlife procreation and this has been noticed on ACT reserves in the lower levels of
at–foot infant offspring.

Chief Minister, in earlier planning documents the ACT Government has said it wanted
to have kangaroo densities at around one kangaroo per hectare on its nature reserves. More
recently, your officials have stated that your target is now 0.5 kangaroos per hectare, or in dry
sheep equivalent grassland carrying capacity terms around one–tenth of a single sheep per
hectare, or one–thirtieth of a single cow. While these figures are ridiculously low for a soft-
footed native animal that has existed in this country for 16 million years, the data now being
collected through community science in the ACT now actually show much lower kangaroo
densities, with the highest kangaroo density being a mere (maximum estimate) 0.378 kangaroos
per hectare. The Goorooyaroo nature reserve has an estimated maximum kangaroo density of
just 0.099. Chief Minister, this equates to around one fiftieth of one sheep and around a
hundred and fiftieth of a single cow in grassland carrying capacity terms. The average
kangaroo density over the 11 reserves is only 0.208. This is plain environmental vandalism.

Chief Minister, each year when a kangaroo kill program is carried out the Government‘s
rhetoric is always about how humane it will be and that it is carried out by well–trained
professional shooters, who only need one clean shot to the brain for an instantaneous death.

We now know this is completely false. You earlier received the autopsy report of a kangaroo
killed during the 2012 kill. This autopsy report was completed by internationally known and
highly respected wildlife and forensic veterinarian Dr Howard Ralph. While this report is for
only one rescued body, it is highly likely that many other animals suffered the same pitiful and
cruel fate as this random example. There are many photos of kangaroos dug up from the burial
pit by activists last year that show miss–shots to the head. These photos are also attached
(Attachment 4).

In Dr Ralph‘s forensic report of 4 June 2012 (Attachment 3), we would like you to
focus on the very last paragraph which states (inter alia):

The above series of lesions indicates that the kangaroo was first shot, then bludgeoned
on the head and then stabbed in the neck. The evidence is consistent with the kangaroo
being alive until finally being exsanguinated and asphyxiated by a laceration to the
throat. The kangaroo very likely suffered severe pain and distress for some time during
this progressive attack, until the fatal exsanguination and asphyxiation.

Chief Minister, you cannot possibly ignore this kind of extreme brutality to a sentient
being. To do so would demonstrate the worst kind of human behaviour; in which a wider right–
minded community would have serious misgivings about who they have in charge of their city.
In this regard we draw your attention to the recent Cambridge Declaration of eminent
neuroscientists and neuropsychologists (2012) in the presence of Professor Stephen Hawking.
That Declaration states (inter alia):

... the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the
neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Nonhuman animals, including all
mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these
neurological substrates.

Chief Minister, clearly some kangaroos are at risk on Canberra’s nature reserves due to
habitat destruction, shooting by surrounding rural lessee farmers, weed infestation and
continued harassment by humans and dogs. In those reserves where kangaroo safety is at risk
we favour translocation to more habitat–friendly places as an ethical, successful, no–kill method
of management. The research by Ray Mjadwesch, summarised in the attached report from him
(Attachment 1), suggests there are plenty of areas in the ACT to which kangaroos could be
moved.

The success of kangaroo translocation has been demonstrated in peer-reviewed
literature and in a recent example in the ACT. Such success depends on it being done
sensitively by people with experience in kangaroo behaviour and translocation, as well as skills
and a licence in chemical immobilisation. It is now not accurate for your Government to say
that the translocation of kangaroos cannot be successfully undertaken. Indeed Chief Minister,
the AJP’s senate candidate for the ACT in the forthcoming federal election, Marcus Fillinger, is
a highly qualified and licenced expert in chemical immobilisation. There are few others that
can boast his level of expertise in this area and he is available in the ACT.

Chief Minister, the cost to the ACT ratepayer of the 2012 ACT Government killing
program was more than $215000, or more than $186 for each of the 1154 kangaroos you had
slaughtered. Based on the costs of a recent kangaroo translocation program within the ACT
that had a one hundred per cent success rate, we know the cost of a no–kill approach through
translocation is just $24.20 per translocated kangaroo. Chief Minister, this cost is six times less
expensive than what you have spent on your killing program.

The cost savings of translocation rather than killing, include no need for security
personnel and police, their travel and accommodation, no need for shooters, their travel and
accommodation, no need for government rangers, no need for ammunition, no need for heavy
excavation equipment for burial pits, no need to close the nature reserves to the general public
for a continuous period, and no need to hire intensifier night vision / thermal imaging
equipment or encumber vital imaging assets from emergency services which in turn could cost
the lives of the general public in an emergency.

Other benefits include avoidance of significantly increased protests and growing negative
public opinion, and learning about how to save animal lives, which requires considerably more
skill and knowledge than simply killing.

Further information about kangaroo translocation costs in a delayed release situation are
found in the peer reviewed publication
http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/garlick austen translocation2.pdf

Chief Minister, we have one other significant concern about the actions your
Government has taken with respect to kangaroo killing in the ACT and the recent statements by
Greens Minister Mr Rattenbury that a cull is necessary. In a world where daily news about
violence has become all–consuming there is now peer-reviewed evidence that brutality to
animals, and the depiction and support for animal brutality, leads to violence and cruelty by
humans against humans in our communities. For this additional reason it is not alright to
brutalise kangaroos as has occurred in Canberra in the past five years.

Chief Minister, in the past your Government has stated that in killing kangaroos it
applies the ‘precautionary principle‘ in relation to other ecological elements in the ACT. There
has never been any causal evidence that kangaroos have a deleterious impact on this ecology –
it is purely associative evidence, which is not satisfactory in defending a program of native
animal killing on ecological grounds. Simple photographs of a fenced and unfenced area of
grassland are far from sufficient scientific evidence. Chief Minister, if we are to operate under
the ‘precautionary principle’, let us have scientific uncertainty and growing public concern
resolved by detailed and independent analysis. In that regard a moratorium is the only decision
that can be made. You will lose no votes with such a decision. How ‘true blue’ will you be in
this year of ACT centenary?

Professor Steve Garlick PhD
President, Animal Justice Party

Marcus Fillinger

Candidate for the Animal Justice Party for the Senate in the ACT

• 
  
• Kangaroos in the ACT – a predicted model of distribution and abundance.
  

• Attached graphic illustrates a model for distribution of Eastern Grey Kangaroos in the ACT in 2013,
  based on kangaroo observations (Atlas of Living Australia (light blue triangles), scientific studies
  (blue triangles) and community reports (pink triangles)), land-use, vegetation type and terrain
  physiognomy.
  Green indicates that suitable habitat exists in the unit, and there is protection for kangaroos (national
  park / conservation reserve). These units include open grasslands such as at Tidbinbilla, as well as
  higher ranges comprising grassy forests, however it may be that wildfire has removed kangaroos
  from some of the illustrated situations. If kangaroos persist they could be expected to occur at near-
  normal densities in optimal habitat areas (between 200-450 / km2, possibly at lower densities in sub-
  optimal habitats).
  

  Note that green does not indicate that the whole square is suitable habitat, it just indicates that
  some of the square is potential habitat, and in this section of the square kangaroos can be expected
  to persist at something approximating 1788 densities. In the south of the ACT (Namadji National
  Park) the green is based on Banks descriptions of “abundant” kangaroos at his 4 study sites (2001).
  

  Orange indicates locations where kangaroos generally persist in landscapes where they are not
  protected, and where they are subject to impacts of human occupation, including rural lands,
  remnants adjoining urban development or land bounded / bisected by roads, and conservation
  reserves in which shooting occurs. These areas formerly represented optimal kangaroo habitat
  (expected 1788 densities 200-450 / km2), and this made these lands a target for agricultural
  development historically. Given stated densities in these regions (TAMS KMP 2010) of around 40/
  km2 (in 1997) and a target density of 0.5/ha in the urban reserves, reductions in these areas could
  be expected to be in the order of 80-90%.
  

  Red indicates landscapes where kangaroos are under extinction pressure. This unit includes small
  isolated remnants, and cleared lands adjoining known / occupied areas and remnants. Kangaroos in
  these areas are often in trouble (on roadsides, trying to navigate their way through cleared farmland
  / fences, etc), and are likely to have experienced decline in the order of up to 99% (may persist at
  densities of 1-5 / km2).
  

  Black indicates areas where kangaroos are presumed extinct (likely 100% reduction). These areas
  are typically highly fertile landscapes, historically given to agricultural, and urban development,
  including the CBD and suburbs, airport, highly modified agricultural landscapes etc. These units
  would previously have supported 200–450 kangaroos / km2.
  

  Gold indicates pine plantations. While kangaroos can persist in pine plantations, when harvesting
  occurs this is highly disruptive to populations, which generally disperse into surrounding landscapes
  with often poor outcomes on local roads and in fences. Vegetation clearing also drives kangaroos
  into neighbouring farmland, where they are frequently shot, and the cycle of pine planting and
  harvesting, oft repeated, can push populations to critically low levels or extinction. For the purposes
  of this discussion Eastern Grey Kangaroo densities in pine plantations are estimated to be 90%
  reduced from 1788 levels.
  

  White indicates habitats typically unused by Eastern Grey Kangaroos, principally on account of
  steep terrain and generally unsuitable vegetation types being present. Dispersing animals may
  sometimes be encountered in these habitats in low densities (negligible contribution to total for the
  ACT).
  

  There are additional layers I would like to add to this graphic, including a density distribution map of
  shooting statistics across the ACT (for the purposes of “damage mitigation” and “conservation
  culling“), to further illustrate the pattern of persecution across the territory. Further refinement of the
  predictive model based on vegetation mapping of the ACT would also be an objective to finalise this
  direction of my investigation, with reference to http://http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/vegetation/extentlactlindex.html.ln
  addition there may be natural altitudinallimits to their distribution (max height of observations c.
  1300m at Bulls Head), which I have not taken into consideration in predicting their possible
  distribution through the high country.
  

  I am also in receipt of 46 data sets and hundreds of photos from community surveys across the
  urban reserves, on which basis density calculations and population estimates are being produced.
  These do seem to vary significantly from the various TAMS pellet count and community survey
  estimates. All of this is obviously a lot of work to do however, particularly in an unpaid capacity, and
  as I have paid contracts which require my attention at the moment, it will take some time to
  incorporate these additional determinants into the model.
  

  In the interim, the following summary provides an indicator of the order of magnitude of decline in
  kangaroos in the ACT:
  

  • 28.3% of the ACT is unsuitable habitat for Eastern Grey Kangaroos on account of steep
    terrain, incorrect vegetation types etc
    
  • Eastern Grey Kangaroos are extinct from 20.5% of the ACT, on account of human
    occupation (city and urban areas, and heavily modified rural landscapes)
    
    • Kangaroos are under pressure across 29.9% of the ACT, from agriculture (loss of habitat
      and shooting), shooting in reserves, and from softwood industry (loss of habitat / disruption)
      
    • Kangaroo habitat in which they are effectively conserved now occupies only 21.3% of
      Australia‘s capital territory, down from 71.7% of the ACT in 1788.
      

  Overall kangaroo decline (simple reduction in distribution and abundance) across the ACT is
  expected to be in the order of 75.8%.
  

  I have tried to be optimistic in allocating green to squares in the south of the study area, to ensure
  that kangaroo distribution is not underestimated. It may be that tracts of potential habitat through
  places like Emu Flat and Kangaroo Creek actually have no kangaroos, in which case the magnitude
  of decline will be greater than indicated above. If you just consider the top half of the ACT (down to
  line 44) the order of predicted decline runs at around 88%.
  

  Apart from page 15 of the TAMS KMP (2010) which obviates the need for further discussion on this
  topic (picture of “ideal habitat“, but where are the kangaroos?), an irresolvable contradiction within
  the culling program is simply demonstrated by the statement in the ACT kangaroo shooting program
  promotional information, which describes kangaroos at densities of up to and exceeding 450/ km2
  at Yankee Hat without any significant impact on grassland / woodland conservation values.
  

  Simultaneously impacts on grasslands by “over-abundant populations” is exactly the reason cited for
  their shooting in and around the city reserves, where TAMS have identified initial densities of only
  154–355 I km2, with aspirationall target densities of only 50-160 / km2 being described as
  “sustainable” .
  

  The ACT Government and TAMS are faced with a stark choice.
  

1. Continue with an unpopular and seemingly unjustifiable program of shooting, even in the face of
   emerging evidence clearly indicating significant and continuing decline in the subject species, or
   
2. Operate under the precautionary principle, where scientific uncertainty can be resolved by
   detailed and independent analysis of the findings of Or Fletcher, and of a parallel community–
   driven study on the kangaroos of the parks and reserves of the city precincts (in prep).
   

Given the amount of shooting which has already occurred (up to 80% of animals have been shot in
some reserves), not shooting the kangaroos in the parks and reserves for a year, while this issue is
resolved, is not going to cause irreparable damage to ecosystems, which are reported to be affected
by the so-called “over-abundant” kangaroos.

Or Fletcher’s local knowledge and input would be welcome, to further refine the attached predictive
model for kangaroos in the ACT. It would be expected that ground–truthing sections of the landscape
and doing density studies in different land systems (for example pine forests) would allow more
accurate estimates to be made. It may be that a simple walk to somewhere like Square Rock (L46)
would render several green squares white (on account of habitat being unsuitable), for example.
Obviously further careful consideration of these and other factors affecting kangaroos across the
ACT will be required before there can be concluding statements on the situation there, however
initial impressions are cause for serious concern.

It should be remembered that the attached model is a start–point for quantifying the distribution and
abundance of this iconic species across the ACT, in the face of ever-intensifying human impact, in
order to initiate discussion about conservation of a species at risk.

In the longer term it seems inevitable that the future for kangaroos in the reserves of the city
precincts will be untenable. Their decline as suburbs continue to swallow land, and their fate as they
are forced onto roads and through fences is not a kind one, as groups are broken up and dispersed,
and as they are run over, chased by dogs and caught in fences. The current situation also places an
unfair onus of responsibility on wildlife rescuers and carers in the region.

The attached graphic illustrates the solution, as well as the problem, however. Populations
persisting in isolation (such as Crace, Mulligans, Majura, the Pinnacle, Mt Painter etc) may require
relocating for their own sake; there seem to be ample landscapes within the system of reserves in
the ACT to accommodate them.

A translocation program, including construction of release compounds and running a monitoring
program, should not exceed the current shooting budget, while providing a safe, humane and long–
term solution to the problems faced by the kangaroos (and their managers) in and around Canberra.
Where locals do like and want their kangaroos, these communities will require assistance in
managing and protecting populations.

• 
  

  I hope these comments are helpful.
  

  All the best
  

  
  

  Ray Mjadwesch
  Conservation Biologist
  

  2013
  

  Attachment 2:
  

  Kangaroo densities on Canberra nature reserves – March/ April 2013*
  

  Reserve	Area (Ha)	Number of	Maximum survey	Density
  		survey team	siting (at foot)**
  		estimates
  		undertaken
  Callum Brae	143	2	54 (12)	0.378
  Crace	136	1	46 (8)	0.338
  Farrer Ridge	178	6	53 (17)	0.298
  Goorooyaroo	746	4	74 (6)	0.099
  Kama	155	2	36 (13)	0.232
  Majura	330 (KMU)	3	59 (21)	0.179
  Mt Painter	232 (KMU)	4	77 (8)	0.332
  Mulligans Flat	352	6	82 (2)	0.230
  Pinnacle	358 (KMU)	8	69 (9)	0.193
  OConnor	62	1	16 (4)	0.258
  Wanniassa Hills	498 (KMU)	6	97 (13)	0.195
  Total	3190	43	663	0.208

  *Undertaken by ACT citizens concerned about wildlife and advised by consulting ecologist Ray
  Mjadwesch.
  

  **maximum siting from the surveys undertaken in column 3.
  

  DR H RALPH
  

  BVSc (Hons), MVS (Wildlife Medicine)
  MBBS (Hens), JCCA Accred (Anaesth),
  A/Dip FA, Dip TESL, Cert Ed NSW
  

  Clinical Forensic MO
  

  15 June 2012
  

  REPORT PERTAINING TO EASTERN GREY KANGAROO
  

  On 4 June 2012, I was requested to conduct a post mortem examination on a young,
  male Eastern Grey Kangaroo. The kangaroo weighed 16kg.
  

  POST MORTEM EXAMINATION
  

  The nutritional status of the kangaroo was adequate.
  

  The kangaroo was externally moist and the fur contained a considerable amount of
  dried and moist dirt in small rolled balls attached to the fur. There was blood partly
  covering the head, neck, front legs and chest. There were several wounds evident
  on the head and neck.
  

  The first of these wounds was a small (0.5 to 1.0 cm diameter) rounded hole that
  penetrated deeply into the tissue at the level of the zygomatic arch and mid distance
  between the right eye and the right ear. The penetration progressed in a line from
  

  the small hole, through the soft tissue of the temporal, masseter and facial muscles
  and out through the lateral area that was originally the mandible. That area showed a
  large (6x 5 cm), irregular wound containing remnants of soft tissue and multiple small
  fragments of mandibular bone and teeth. The original structure of the mandible and
  teeth was totally disrupted. There two wounds are consistent with a bullet wound
  entry above and exit below.
  

  The second wound was at the posterodorsal (back and top) aspect of the head.
  There was considerable crepitus (crunching sensation) on palpation of the skull and
  the cranium was deformed and not intact. Incision over the scalp revealed
  haemorrhage beneath the skin and multiple fractures of the cranial (skull) bone.
  

• 
  

  These bone fragments were easily moved to display a large amount of haemorrhage
  within the skull and brain. The brain showed considerable external haemorrhage with
  some also in the ventricles and brain substance. This injury is consistent with a
  crushing, blunt trauma to the skull and brain.
  

  The third wound was on the right side of the neck about 4cm distal to the angle of
  the mandible (point of the jaw), 3 to 4cm from dorsal (top) to ventral (bottom) and
  2cm wide at the centre. The edges of the wound were regular and smooth consistent
  with a sharp knife entry wound. Within the wound there was blood from the jugular
  vein, carotid artery and other smaller vessel that had been severed. A number of
  muscles were divided (severed). The trachea was divided (severed) leaving a
  smooth surface on each fragment. There was blood in both sections of the trachea
  and extending down into the bronchi.
  

  The skin of the neck was retracted and revealed subcutaneous haemorrhage
  extending from the posterior skull along the dorsum (top) of the cervical area to
  almost the level of the scapula and shoulder. This indicated that there was bleeding
  from the head wounds during life.
  

  The chest cavity was opened and contained lungs that partly contained air and partly
  contained blood particularly on the right. The distribution of the air was consistent
  with aspiration of blood during breathing.
  

  The abdomen, hind limbs and lumbosacral spine were examined and did not reveal
  any abnormality.
  

  INTERPRETATION
  

  The first wound to the face was consistent with a gunshot from above, the bullet
  entering at the dorsal part of the right hand side and exiting at the level of the
  mandible and causing massive damage to that bone and teeth. That was likely to be
  the primary wound of a series of three wounds and is not likely to have been fatal.
  

  The second wound, to the skull and brain, caused extensive trauma/damage to both
  structures and is consistent with blunt trauma caused by a blow with a heavy object.
  Considering the bleeding along the dorsum of the neck and the series of three
  assaults on this kangaroo, this trauma to the head was unlikely to have caused
  immediate death.
  

  The third wound is consistent with a penetrating knife wound to the neck. The skin,
  muscle, vessels and trachea were divided in such a manner as to be also consistent
  with a deep knife injury. The presence of blood aspirated into the trachea, bronchi
  and lung is consistent with aspiration before death.
  

  The above series of lesions indicates that the kangaroo was first shot, then
  bludgeoned on the head and then stabbed in the neck. The evidence is consistent
  with the kangaroo being alive until finally being exsanguinated and asphyxiated by a
  laceration to the throat. The kangaroo very likely suffered severe pain and distress
  for some time during this progressive attack, until the fatal exsanguination and
  asphyxiation.
  

  Yours sincerely
  

  Dr Howard Ralph
  

  ANIMAL.
  JUSTICE PARTY
  

  … a better life for all
  

  Postal address:     Email: info@animaljusticeparty.org
  

  PO Box toto     Web: www.animaljusticeparty.org
  

  Strawberry Hills NSW
  

  The following graphic and distressing images of slaughtered Eastern Grey kangaroos are a
  sample of that taken at the Kama Nature Reserve burial pit.
  

  The images show kangaroos having being shot through the jaw and neck, despite ACT
  Government claims that kangaroos are killed by a single lethal shot to the head by expert
  marksmen.
  

  The images show infants having had their heads sawn off, in what must be considered a highly
  brutal and violent act. The images also show the bodies of a high proportion of viable kangaroo
  young (approximate weight 500 grams) despite statements by the ACT Government that such
  culls are undertaken during May to avoid in–pouch joeys being impacted on by such killing
  programs.
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

• 
  
• 
  

  3
  

•