The kangaroo conundrum remains

Abstract

Summary The management of kangaroo populations is a major land management and conservation issue in many parts of Australia. Viggers & Hearn (2005) reported the results of a substantial radio‐tracking study of the eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus Shaw) in south‐eastern Australia. Martin et al. (2007) critique the study design, home range analysis, biomass assessment and other aspects of the work by Viggers & Hearn (2005). We reject the criticisms made by Martin et al. (2007) and believe that the study design employed by Viggers & Hearn (2005) was sound. The work also was preceded by extensive day and night‐time field assessments to enable contrasts between low and high density M. giganteus populations. We also contend that the home range analysis was not flawed: the methods employed by Viggers & Hearn (2005) were in fact the same ones recommended by Martin et al. (2007). We believe that other criticisms made by Martin et al. (2007) also cannot be sustained. Synthesis and applications. Viggers & Hearn (2005) found that patches of remnant native vegetation were used as day and night‐time refuges by M. giganteus. This creates a disincentive for farmers to conserve remnant native vegetation. The criticisms by Martin et al. (2007) have no bearing on this conclusion; hence the kangaroo conundrum stands.