Europe’s game harvesting lessons for Australia

This column concludes my four-part review of Neal Finch’s Churchill Fellowship report regarding wild game harvesting in Europe (see EU kangaroo import bans explained, UK deer management lessons for Australia, French hunting and game meat lessons and Europe’s game meat model examined). A good take-home message is that continent’s model of wildlife management, particularly its integration of hunting and game-meat utilisation, which offers valuable lessons for Australia. Across Europe, non-commercial hunters form the core workforce managing abundant wildlife such as deer and wild boar.

Governments rely on these hunters to achieve population control, animal-disease surveillance and conservation outcomes and, while professional cullers exist, they play only a minor role. In contrast, Australia depends on publicly-funded contractors and aerial-shooting programs while largely excluding recreational hunters from structured management.

A central European principle is ‘no waste’ with animals killed for management, food or pest control almost always used. This ethic reflects deep cultural traditions of respect for wildlife, as to kill and discard an animal is considered unethical. Compare this with Australia’s approach, where most pest animals shot from air or ground are left to rot. Finch argues that economic and regulatory structures, as well as an aversion to giving ‘value’ to declared pests, drive this waste. By placing some commercial or cultural value on such animals, we could transform attitudes and reduce wasteful practices.

European hunting culture also emphasises clean, humane kills. The accepted best-practice shot for ungulates is the chest (heart-lung area) offering a large, stable target and ensuring rapid death. In Australia, harvest codes require a head-shot for macropods, a smaller moving target. Finch notes Australia is unique in mandating this practice and could review whether its standards truly deliver best welfare outcomes.

Another major difference is the ‘revier’ or lease system, which gives hunting rights tangible value separate from land ownership. Landholders receive payment or share arrangements with hunters, aligning incentives for wildlife management. Exploring similar models in this country could foster cooperation rather than competition between landholders, professional harvesters and recreational hunters.

Finch found the interconnection between commercial and non-commercial sectors to be Europe’s defining feature, as recreational hunters supply most carcasses entering the commercial game-meat chain. In Australia the two are strictly separated by licensing and firearms laws, creating inefficiencies and animosity. The European system shows they can coexist productively, combining resource utilisation with public conservation goals.

He further challenged the long-held claim that Australia’s kangaroo harvest is the world’s largest terrestrial wildlife harvest. Collated European data suggested roughly three million wild boar, 2.7 million roe deer, 450,000 red deer, 200,000 fallow and 100,000 moose are harvested annually, meaning Europe’s total commercial game-meat take easily exceeds our 1.5 million-animal kangaroo harvest.

The RSPCA UK’s pragmatic stance impressed Finch as while it opposes ‘hunting for sport’, it accepts culling as necessary and supports full utilisation of deer carcasses. This contrasts with RSPCA Australia’s increasingly negative public stance on commercial kangaroo harvesting despite similar policy foundations. There’s undoubtedly a need for renewed collaboration between welfare organisations and industry to promote ethical, science-based management rather than polarised debate.

Australia’s heavy reliance on publicly-funded culls is inefficient, short-term and morally questionable when edible meat is wasted. Integrating commercial harvest and regulated recreational hunting could achieve population control without ongoing public expense while respecting animal welfare. Deer in particular present an ideal test-case for such integration.

Finch condemned the recurrent mass starvation of kangaroos during drought as a national welfare failure which Europeans would never accept. Human intervention through sustainable harvesting, coupled with full utilisation of carcasses, would deliver better welfare and ecological outcomes.

He recommends establishing a National Kangaroo Initiative modelled on the UK’s Deer Initiative, to bring stakeholders together (governments, landholders, harvesters, animal-welfare bodies and scientists) to align policy, training and utilisation. Nationally recognised training for both commercial and recreational harvesters would lift standards and accountability, while payment structures for landholder access could be trialled to incentivise cooperation.

In summary, Finch’s work concludes Australia must move from a ‘kill-and-waste’ paradigm to a ‘harvest-and-utilise’ ethos founded on respect, welfare and sustainability. Europe demonstrates non-professional hunters, operating within a regulated and culturally supported framework, can effectively manage wildlife populations, provide high-quality meat and reduce the need for public culling programs. He sees his role as sharing these lessons widely to encourage a new, integrated Australian model of wildlife management which mirrors Europe’s proven success.

This is a vision which I and countless other share. The question is: Will the pest management industry be receptive to policy change which reduces public funds going into their pockets?