What is a social licence to operate? Social licence is as important as a formal regulatory licence to operate but it is informal and intangible and is issued by communities rather than a government agency, and may be gained or lost through complex processes with high levels of uncertainty. Social licence also requires active maintenance over time. It is dynamic and may change over time because public beliefs and perceptions can change over time.
- The development of a new code of practice for the commercial harvesting of kangaroos
- Animal harms and food production: informing ethical choices
- Knowledge and values drive acceptability of lethal control of kangaroos among the Australian public
- The Australian kangaroo industry: male only harvesting, sustainability and an assessment of animal welfare impacts
- Characterising the Australian public and communicating about kangaroo management
- The Eastern Grey kangaroo: a modern conservation dilemma
- Social acceptability of pest animal management in meeting TGP targets
- Thought again: fair criticism or a muddle-headed grandstanding?
- Kangaroo Court: Enforcement of the law governing commercial kangaroo killing
- Kangaroos at risk: nomination to List the Large Macropods as threatened species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
- Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation
- Advocating kangaroo meat: towards ecological benefit or plunder?
- Bringing Compassion to the Ethical Dilemma in Killing Kangaroos for Conservation
- THINKK again: getting the facts straight on kangaroo harvesting and conservation
- Evaluation of organised tourism involving wild kangaroos
- The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation
- People and the Kangaroo Harvest in the South Australian Rangelands
- The welfare ethics of the commercial killing of free-ranging kangaroos: an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the industry
- Welfare implications of commercial kangaroo killing: Do the ends justify the means?
- Envisioning the future with “compassionate conservation”: An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity
- International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control
- Gunpowder-powered captive bolts for the euthanasia of kangaroo pouch young
- Long-acting contraceptives: a new tool to manage overabundant kangaroo populations in nature reserves and urban areas
- Makings of Icons: Alan Newsome, the Red Kangaroo and the Dingo
- Stakeholder judgements of the social acceptability of control practices for kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia
- Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia
- Do concerns about kangaroo management represent an existential threat for the red meat industry in the southern Australian rangelands?
- An assessment of animal welfare for the culling of peri-urban kangaroos
- The role of inspections in the commercial kangaroo industry
- Social and cultural dimensions of commercial kangaroo harvest in South Australia
- Support for Indigenous wildlife management in Australia
- The role of kangaroos in Australian tourism
The development of a new code of practice for the commercial harvesting of kangaroos
(McLeod & Sharp, 2020)
This report presents an overview of the process and consultations to develop a revised national code of practice for the commercial harvesting of kangaroo. The report includes the results from public consultation on the new code and survey results on attitudes and understanding of kangaroo harvesting.
Animal harms and food production: informing ethical choices
(Hampton, Hyndman, Allen, & Fischer, 2021)
Knowledge and values drive acceptability of lethal control of kangaroos among the Australian public
(Dawson, Dawson, Kennedy, Kreplins, Linnell & Fleming, 2023)
The Australian kangaroo industry: male only harvesting, sustainability and an assessment of animal welfare impacts
(McLeod & Sharp, 2020)
Characterising the Australian public and communicating about kangaroo management
Sharp, Trudy M, McLeod, Steven R & Hine, Donald W RIRDC Project No. PRJ-008967 (2014) (Sharp, McLeod, Steven R, & Hine, Donald W, 2014)
The Eastern Grey kangaroo: a modern conservation dilemma
(Kerle, A 2018)
Social acceptability of pest animal management in meeting TGP targets
(Sinclair, Atkinson, Curtis, & Hacker, 2018)
Thought again: fair criticism or a muddle-headed grandstanding?
(Croft, Ben-Ami, Ramp, & Boom, 2012)
A response by the THINKK group to an article by Cooney, Baumber, Ampt, Wilson, Smits & Web called “THINKK again: getting the facts straight on kangaroo harvesting and conservation published in Science Under Siege.
Kangaroo Court: Enforcement of the law governing commercial kangaroo killing
(Boom, Ben-Ami, Dror, & Boronyak, Louise, 2012)
Kangaroos at risk: nomination to List the Large Macropods as threatened species under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
Mjadwesch, R (20.12.2011)
https://www.kangaroosatrisk.net
(2 November, 2018)
Compassionate versus consequentialist conservation
(Hampton, Warburton, & Sandoe, 2018)
Addresses issues with term compassionate conservation as it takes a narrow view of animal welfare by primarily considering what is intentionally done to animals by humans and putting less focus on what happens broadly to animals as a result of anthropogenic processes.
Advocating kangaroo meat: towards ecological benefit or plunder?
(Ben-Ami, Croft, Ramp, & Boom, 2010)
This report was produced by THINKK, who claim their mission is to foster understanding among Australians about kangaroos in a sustainable landscape, through critically reviewing the scientific evidence underpinning kangaroo management practices and exploring non-lethal management options that are consistent with ecology, animal welfare, human health and ethics. These authors claim that scientific evidence does not stack up for utilising kangaroo as a resource, but instead recommend eco-tourism. Note, THINKK has a strong relationship with Voiceless, a vocal public opponent of the kangaroo harvest.
Bringing Compassion to the Ethical Dilemma in Killing Kangaroos for Conservation
(Comment on “Conservation Through Sustainable Use” by Rob Irvine(Ramp, 2013)
Ramp argues that efforts to bring transparency and objectivity to the public debate over the ethics of killing game over livestock have to date been obfuscated by those seeking to maintain entrenched interests.
THINKK again: getting the facts straight on kangaroo harvesting and conservation
(Cooney, et al., 2012)
This paper challenges Ben-Ami’s 2010 publication denying the environmental benefits of harvesting kangaroos, and demonstrates that it is inaccurate, lacks academic objectivity and makes several invalid and misleading comparisons.
Evaluation of organised tourism involving wild kangaroos
(Higginbottom, et al., 2003)
Commissioned and funded by the International Fund for Animal Welfare this report analysis current tourism approaches involving wild kangaroos and provides recommendations for developing this field further.
The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation
(Oommen, et al., 2019)
People and the Kangaroo Harvest in the South Australian Rangelands
(Thomsen & Davies, 2007)
This 2007 report addresses a need for better understanding of social and institutional issues impacting on kangaroo management and the kangaroo industry in South Australia. The report also investigates Aboriginal rights, interests and aspirations in relation to commercial kangaroo harvesting.
The welfare ethics of the commercial killing of free-ranging kangaroos: an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the industry
(Ben-Ami, et al., 2014)
This paper is produced by members of THINKK (the Think Tank for Kangaroos) and investigates the ethics of the kangaroo harvest and finds them to be lacking compared to the welfare costs.
Welfare implications of commercial kangaroo killing: Do the ends justify the means?
(Ben-Ami, et al., 2011)
A product of THINKK, this report argues that the ends – defined as damage mitigation, commercial value and environmental value – don’t justify the means – defined as dependent young dying as collateral damage, mis-shot adult kangaroos, genetic integrity, compliance and public attitudes. Considering that THINKK is funded by Voiceless, this report understandably finds that those ends they define don’t justify the means they define.
International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control
(Dubois, et al., 2016)
Makings of Icons: Alan Newsome, the Red Kangaroo and the Dingo
(Newsome T. M., 2014)
Stakeholder judgements of the social acceptability of control practices for kangaroos, unmanaged goats and feral pigs in the south-eastern rangelands of Australia
(Sinclair, Curtis, Hacker, & Atkinson, 2019)
Public attitudes to animal welfare and landholder resource limitations: implications for total grazing pressure management in the southern rangelands of Australia
(Sinclair, Curtis, Atkinson, & Hacker, 2019)
Do concerns about kangaroo management represent an existential threat for the red meat industry in the southern Australian rangelands?
(Sinclair, Curtis, & Atkinson, 2019)
An assessment of animal welfare for the culling of peri-urban kangaroos
(Forsyth & Hampton, 2016)
The role of inspections in the commercial kangaroo industry
(Boom, Ben Ami, Boronyak, & Riley, 2013)
Support for Indigenous wildlife management in Australia
(Wilson, Edwards & Smits, 2010)
The role of kangaroos in Australian tourism
(Higginbottom, Northrope, Croft, Hill, & Fredline, 2004)