Bill would outlaw kangaroo skin in Arizona

PHOENIX — Got kangaroo parts?

You may if you have certain kinds of sports shoes.

And a proposed new state law would make the sale and purchase of such items made with what has been called “k-leather” a crime.

Rep. Amish Shah, D-Phoenix, said his measure “raises awareness to the wildlife slaughter.”

More to the point, HB 2741 is designed to target Nike and other U.S. shoe companies that use kangaroo skin — known for being strong and lightweight — in some of their soccer shoes.

The legislation is similar to a 1971 California law which bans the sale of kangaroo products.

No other state followed suit.

So two years ago there was a bid to impose a national ban on the commercial importation of a kangaroo. More to the point, the legislation would have outlawed the interstate commerce or manufacture of “any kangaroo product.’’

That measure failed.

Now the focus has shifted to a state-by-state basis.

Earlier this year, Oregon state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat, introduced a similar bill. And he made it clear his measure is aimed at Nike which has its home office in Oregon.

“I understand this legislation may have financial impact on some Oregon shoe manufacturers, but in the balance Oregon should be standing on the humane side of this issue,” he said. “There are other materials that can be used in making these high-end cleats.”

Shah’s measure in many ways mirrors the Oregon bill.

He referred questions about his bill to the efforts by the Center for a Humane Economy.

There are differences between using things like leather and even alligator for shoes versus kangaroo skins, said Natasha Dolezal, the organization’s senior legal advocate.

And the biggest, she said, is how they are raised and killed.

“These kangaroos are not farmed,” Dolezal said.

“They are wild,” she continued. “And it is the largest commercial slaughter of terrestrial wildlife in the world.”

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

She acknowledged the state-by-state efforts are focused not on the use of kangaroo meat, which is available in the form of jerky for humans and even pet food, but on the sports shoes which she said accounts for 70% of all the kangaroos skin that are bought.

If U.S. shoe companies could not purchase kangaroo skins from Australia “the industry would collapse,” Dolezal said.

There was no immediate response from Nike.

But in a statement to ESPN, it said it’s k-leather, as it is called, “is used in a small portion of football boots because of its unique properties.”

“We work with leather suppliers that source animal skins from processors that use sound animal husbandry and humane treatment, whether farmed, domesticated, or wild managed,” the statement said.

And Adidas provided a similar statement to ESPN that said the company is “opposed to kangaroos being killed in an inhumane or cruel manner.” The company said kangaroo leather accounts for “significantly below 1%” as it has been able to use other materials.

Dolezal said this isn’t an attempt by her organization to tell Australia how to manage their wildlife.

“They can continue to shoot kangaroos if they want,” she said. “What we’re trying to say is we don’t want products sold with this kind of cruelty available in the states.”

And then there’s the education element.

“Once consumers here know what is going on and how they’re actually made, they’re horrified,” Dolezal said.

Even if Shah’s bill were to become law — it has not even been scheduled for a hearing at this point — enforcement could be another matter.

Dolezal said soccer shoes made with kangaroo leather still can be found at certain retailers in California despite the ban there. She said her organization is involved in litigation to stop the practice.

And there’s another issue.

Shah’s measure would make it a crime not only to intentionally or knowingly buy or sell parts of a dead kangaroo, but impose the same penalty on such actions committed recklessly. And it carries a sentence of six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

He insisted, though, the legislation is not aimed at shoe buyers who don’t take the time to research — or even read the content labels — of the items they purchase.

“The intent is not to criminalize any consumer behavior but rather stop retail sales of shoes, where most of the commercial value is,” he told Capitol Media Services. “If that needs to be clarified in the bill, we will do so.”