Thin end of the wedge for California: Kangaroos targeted once again

SB 1212, now before the California legislature, represents a significant and deeply troubling departure from the state’s longstanding prohibition on the importation and sale of products derived from a wide array of endangered or vulnerable species, including Kangaroos. Existing statutory protections reflect California’s commitment to global wildlife conservation and animal welfare. For decades, it has been a misdemeanour to bring into the state, possess with intent to sell, or offer for sale, the dead body or parts of animals such as polar bears, cheetahs, elephants, and Kangaroos, among others.

The newly proposed amendment seeks to carve out an exception to this protection for Kangaroos, provided that the animals were killed for commercial gain for their skins and meat (a trade in wildlife) in accordance with Australian law, the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and relevant international conventions. At first glance, this may appear to present a controlled, regulated compromise. In reality, however, it directly undermines the intent and efficacy of California’s wildlife trade restrictions by inviting products of an industry rife with questionable data and systematic animal welfare concerns and along with these, significant human harms back in Australia.

‍

Doubtful justification: Debunking the myth of overabundant Kangaroos

The argument for relaxing California’s ban on Kangaroo products is often couched in the assertion that Kangaroo populations in Australia are exploding, leading to ecological damage that necessitates commercial culling and exploitation. Unfortunately, this narrative is based on fundamentally flawed, the result of which is population data (population estimates by the Australian states) that is not only wrong and significantly overstated, but biologically impossible. Analysis of Kangaroo population estimates, quotas, and commercial take records maintained by Australian state governments over the past four decades reveals a troubling pattern of exaggeration and obfuscation.

From 2011 to 2014, Australian authorities claimed that national Kangaroo populations more than doubled, from about 25 million to over 53 million animals, outpacing at scale even the most optimistic reproduction rates. These claims coincided with an aggressive international marketing campaign aimed at expanding commercial exploitation, including the U.S. market. However, a thorough review of official records shows these population swings are biologically impossible. For example, in the early 2000s, Queensland boasted an alleged population increase of over 10 million Kangaroos in a single year, far more than could possibly be explained by natural reproduction even in ideal circumstances.

The pattern repeats across other states, where changes in survey methodology, including Kangaroo counts from the air, or arbitrary computer-based modelling, drive reported population increases which in all likelihood do not exist. The result is a persistent overstatement of resources, used to justify not only high annual hunting quotas but also claims that the trade is ‘sustainable’ and necessary for ecosystem management. The actual number of Kangaroos taken commercially each year tells a different story. Consistently, far fewer Kangaroos are killed than the quotas allow, by 2024, only about a quarter of the maximum permissible quota was met across Australia, making clear that the supposed overpopulation does not actually exist. The animals targeted for killing simply are not present in the numbers authorities claim, a shortfall starkly evidenced in commercial take records from all five mainland states. Despite the continual advice given to the Federal Government and states that the population estimates are wrong and overstated, all governments have persisted with their claims.

‍

Evidence of declining Kangaroo populations and overexploitation

Further scrutiny of population and commercial data illuminates a deeply concerning trend, despite ongoing expansions of shooting zones where commercial exploitation of Kangaroos can occur, the actual commercial take of Kangaroos has steadily declined from nearly four million animals in 2002 to just over 1.3 million in 2024. This dramatic drop occurs even as quotas remain high or increase in some years and bounties and incentives in some states to subsidies the commercial kill have little impact in raising take, meaning the shortfall between quota and reality grows. The shortfall today is so large that it cannot be explained by anything other than a dearth of Kangaroos to kill. In the case of South Australia, for instance, only 17 percent of the quota was met in 2024. Victoria, where a full commercial trade has existed in its last iteration since late 2019, demonstrates a coordinated overstatement of animal availability across multiple jurisdictions, along with declining commercial take when measured against quotas.

Moreover, the situation becomes even more grim when accounting for animal welfare considerations. An estimated 400,000 joeys are killed each year in conjunction with commercial killing activities, the young animals are bludgeoned to death or decapitated and discarded, as younger animals are considered commercially worthless. These cruel practices are systematically erased from official statistics and public reports, further obscuring the true magnitude and brutality of the trade.

‍

Animal welfare and enforcement failures

Proponents of SB 1212 rely heavily on the existence of the so-called National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies, as well as regulatory oversight claimed by Australian authorities. In reality, the code is both toothless and unenforced. There are scarcely any compliance or welfare checks in the field; the overwhelming majority of monitoring is relegated to assessing carcasses at processing facilities, not where the suffering and deaths actually occur. Reports from South Australia, consistently one of the most egregious states in these matters, confirm that government staff do not witness the shooting or killing of Kangaroos in the field, citing occupational safety concerns. Instead, compliance focuses on paperwork infractions, such as returning permits or tags late, rather than substantive animal welfare issues.

Documentation exists of wounded animals left to die, mis-shot Kangaroos that escape maimed, jaws blown off, and distressingly inhumane slaughter of dependent joeys, a reality fundamentally incompatible with any meaningful notion of ‘humane harvesting’. This failure is not a matter of insufficient training, but of systemic incapacity and, at times, deliberate evasion: state governments cannot, and do not, reliably account for animal suffering in the commercial Kangaroo trade.

‍

California’s leadership and responsibility

California is globally recognized for its progressive approach to biodiversity, animal welfare, and environmental law. To relax the ban on Kangaroo products now, based on dubious biological claims and assurances of humane treatment that are demonstrably false, would mark a radical step backward. Furthermore, it would associate the state with an industry increasingly questioned both within Australia and in the international community for its ecological and ethical sustainability.

It must also be recognized that the harms of the Kangaroo industry run deeper than ecology and animal welfare. The ongoing expansion of commercial shooting zones, now actually in or encroaching into areas close to human habitation and enterprise, brings direct distress and trauma to communities and families, including children exposed to violence at the very ‘point of kill’. Social and psychological harm in these communities is real, as is the growing Australian public opposition to the industry.

Given the overwhelming evidence of inflated Kangaroo population estimates, unsustainable commercial exploitation, and pervasive animal welfare abuses, California should not reverse its longstanding policy. The proposed exemption for Kangaroo products, as outlined in SB 1212, rests on a demonstrably false premise that the trade is necessary, humane, and scientifically justified. The reality, as analysis and actual conduct clearly show, is that the commercial exploitation of several Kangaroo species is unsustainable, systemically cruel, and incapable of genuine external regulation.

California has long stood as a leader in environmental responsibility and compassion. To retreat from this leadership now would not only fail to protect one of the world’s most iconic, and increasingly threatened family of wild animals, but would also undermine the credibility of the state’s conservation ethos. For these reasons, California’s lawmakers must reject SB 1212 and stand firm in upholding the ban on Kangaroo imports and sales.

‍

Australian politics and wildlife: We have been there before

Bills aiming to prohibit the sale of Kangaroo products have been introduced or proposed in the United States Congress, various US state legislatures, and in several European jurisdictions. In response, the Australian Government, through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has been actively working to counter what the government describes as “misinformation and ensure that consumers are able to access Australia’s high-quality, responsibly sourced Kangaroo products”.

Since 1971, the US state of California has imposed a ban on the sale of Kangaroo products, originally due to concerns about declining Kangaroo populations in Australia. Although temporary moratoriums were enacted in 2007 and 2010, the ban was fully reinstated in 2015 and continues to prevent Australian businesses from selling Kangaroo products in the California market.

In March and April 2026, Queensland’s media, in response to significant concern in Europe about Australia’s trade in wildlife and its implications for animal welfare and human health (particularly the human consumption of bushmeat), are reporting that the Federal Agriculture Minister, Julie Collins, has rejected the Flemish ban, arguing Australia's management was based on sound science and environmental sustainability. Ms Collins said she had written to the Flanders Government late last year, urging it to reconsider its proposed ban on kangaroo products. Given the previous conduct of Australian Government’s in promoting the trade in Kangaroo products around the world, press reports are likely to be correct.

Historically, there was a strong tradition within the Labor Party of advocating for the protection of Kangaroos. A petition from over fifty years ago is a striking example. Notably, the signature of Kim Beazley Sr. appears among the signatories, demonstrating the party’s previous commitment to wildlife conservation. In a dramatic contrast, his son, Kim Beazley Jr. (also a former and prominent Labor politician and leader) has in more recent years publicly defended the commercial exploitation of Kangaroos and overseas export of Kangaroo products, including in California while serving as the Australian Ambassador to the US. This generational shift within a single political family underscores the broader changes that have occurred within the Labor Party’s approach to this and numerous other wildlife issues.

The 1980s petition, addressed to the Secretary General of the United Nations, was signed by sixteen leading members of the Australian Labor Party. These included the Federal President of the ALP, Senator Jim Keeffe; Deputy Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, Mr. Lance Bernard; and several State Presidents and Secretaries from across Australia, including Kim Beazley Sr., then the Federal Member for Fremantle. Their petition called global attention to the detrimental impacts of commercial shooting on Kangaroo populations, warning that the survival of iconic species such as the Red Kangaroo was in jeopardy due to widespread and indiscriminate hunting. The signatories also highlighted numerous instances of cruelty associated with this industry.

In response, the petitioners urged the United Nations General Assembly to formally investigate the matter, to establish an international body for the protection of threatened wildlife, and to recommend that the Australian Government take immediate action to preserve existing Kangaroo populations.

Despite these early efforts, the contemporary approach of the Labor Party is closely aligned with industry interests, advocating for continued commercial exploitation. This dramatic divergence from past advocacy efforts raises important questions about the factors that have shaped current policy and the implications for Kangaroo welfare and conservation. Ultimately, the plight of Kangaroos on the Australian continent remains fraught, caught between changing political priorities and enduring threats to their survival.

Labor’s shift from once championing Kangaroo conservation to now being perceived as facilitating their commercial exploitation and alleged mistreatment is both surprising and deeply concerning. This evolution in policy and public positioning reflects the complex interplay between changing societal values and persistent political interests. While some aspects of this issue have shifted dramatically over decades, others unfortunately remain consistent, resulting in an increasingly precarious situation for Kangaroos across Australia.

As a snapshot in time, here are some examples regarding the overseas jurisdictions, both countries and individual US states with independent import regulations, where the Australian Federal Government has undertaken, or plans to undertake, advocacy activities since 2018. The objective of these efforts is to encourage acceptance of Australian Kangaroo products, maintain existing export markets, and build new market access opportunities.

Since 2018, the Australian Government has made formal representations to governments, industry groups, and officials in a number of key jurisdictions, including the United States (at both federal and state levels) and the European Union. In the United States, these efforts have targeted not only Congress but also legislative bodies in states such as Arizona, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Vermont. Within the European Union, active engagement has occurred with the governments of the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Australian Government’s approach has included direct correspondence, meetings (both in-person and virtual), as well as facilitating visits by representatives of the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (now the Australian Wild Game Industry Council) to Europe and the United States. These activities are considered part of the government’s regular advocacy efforts.

For example, from 2018 through 2023, government representatives have engaged with a broad number of jurisdictions. Engagements have included correspondence and meetings with legislators, government officials, and key industry groups, as well as animal welfare organizations and major international footwear brands. Examples of these interactions include a meeting with the European Commission in December 2019, correspondence with Belgian legislators and the Belgian Minister for Consumer Affairs in 2020, and active participation in a European Parliament webinar focused on animal welfare which we attended. Direct engagement has also taken place with offices related to significant legislative proposals such as H.R. 917, the Kangaroo Protection Act of 2021, and H.R. 4995, the Kangaroo Protection Act of 2023.

In the United States, the Government has reached out to entities such as the Leather & Hide Council of America, as well as animal rights organisations and major sporting brands including New Balance, Nike, and Adidas. In May 2021, government representatives met with the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America, while engagement with legislators from New Jersey included multiple meetings and correspondence throughout 2021 and 2023. Discussions also extended to the United States Department of Agriculture and the Office of the United States Trade Representative in early 2023, as well as with the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus.

Within Europe, activities have included meetings with the European Commission Health and Food Safety Directorate, the Dutch Ministry of Nature, Land and Food Quality, and representatives of the European Parliament and Member States. Correspondence with the Dutch Government occurred as recently as December 2023.

Through these advocacy efforts, the Australian Government continues to promote what it describes as evidence-based policy decisions (while ignoring much of the actual evidence), emphasising the “sustainability and integrity of Australia’s Kangaroo product supply chain” and working to protect and expand international market access in the face of legislative challenges abroad.

‍

Government grants related to the commercial exploitation of Kangaroos

The Australian Government has supported the Kangaroo industry through a range of grant programs that aim to, in their words, “modernise agricultural practices, enhance traceability, and support industry engagement in international markets”. Two significant sources of funding include the Traceability Grants Program and the Package Assisting Small Exporters Extension Program.

The Traceability Grants Program, funded under the Modernising Agricultural Trade and Protecting Australia’s Clean, Green Brand initiative, is designed to support projects that improve traceability across the agricultural supply chain. This includes the development and trialling of technologies that facilitate the digitisation of information flow. On 7 May 2021, Western Game Processing was awarded a grant of $297,000 under this program. The funds enabled the development of a mobile application and an internet dashboard to record real-time data on the commercial exploitation of Kangaroos, tracking the process from the point of origin to processing. This app was funded to transitioned what was previously a manual system into a digital platform, thereby intending to enhance traceability within the Kangaroo meat industry.

In addition, the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia (KIAA) received $366,500 (GST exclusive) through the Package Assisting Small Exporters Extension Program from 2019–20 to 2022–23. This funding supported KIAA’s activities aimed at strengthening engagement with key export markets for Kangaroo products, particularly in the European Union (EU) and United States (US). The project included updating and simplifying the KIAA website, providing translations in multiple languages, and developing a virtual briefing and social media information package to “promote the industry's sustainability and animal welfare credentials”. Furthermore, representatives engaged directly with stakeholders in the EU and US during 2022 and 2023 to “further raise awareness of the industry’s standards and achievements”.

Additionally, since 2017, Agricultural Research Grants have provided approximately $745,000 for research relevant to the commercial exploitation of Kangaroos. This funding has supported various studies, including a project investigating humane methods for euthanising joeys during commercial killing activities, there have been horrific experiments on young animals. In accordance with the National Code of Practice, it is mandated that any dependent young of commercially harvested female Kangaroos must be ‘humanely’ euthanised to prevent suffering which is done by decapitation or bludgeoning to death and cannot under any circumstances be humane. One such experiment aims to evaluate the effectiveness and suitability of captive bolt devices as a humane method for euthanasia of Kangaroo young in this context.

Significant sums are also expended by state governments, including for population surveys, managing, consultants, reports and generally justifying the mass killing and its enforcement.