In wildlife management, the program of monitoring will depend on the management objective. If the objective is damage mitigation, then ideally it is damage that should be monitored. Alternatively, population size (N) can be used as a surrogate for damage, but the relationship between N and damage obviously needs to be known. If the management objective is a sustainable harvest, then the system of monitoring will depend on the harvesting strategy. In general, the harvest strategy in all states has been to offer a quota that is a constant proportion of population size. This strategy has a number of advantages over alternative strategies, including a low risk of over- or underharvest in a stochastic environment, simplicity, robustness to bias in population estimates and allowing harvest policy to be proactive rather than reactive. However, the strategy requires an estimate of absolute population size that needs to be made regularly for a fluctuating population. Trends in population size and in various harvest statistics, while of interest, are secondary. This explains the large research effort in further developing accurate estimation methods for kangaroo populations. Direct monitoring on a large scale is costly. Aerial surveys are conducted annually at best, and precision of population estimates declines with the area over which estimates are made. Management at a fine scale (temporal or spatial) therefore requires other monitoring tools. Indirect monitoring through harvest statistics and habitat models, that include rainfall or a greenness index from satellite imagery, may prove useful.