A four-decade old fight over the importation and sale of kangaroo parts has exploded in the California state government, with the Australian kangaroo industry - and even the Australian government - being accused of underhanded practices.
On one side of the dispute The Humane Society of the United States is seeking to have a suspended ban on the sale of kangaroo parts in California reintroduced at the end of the year.
On the other side a California state representative, the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia, a team of Washington, DC, lobbyists and the Australian government, are seeking to quash it permanently. 
The fight has become heated and attracted the attention of the Sacramento Bee, the largest newspaper in California's state capital, which has published stories on the alleged underhanded tactics of the industry and its Australian government backers.
Way back in 1971 then governor Ronald Reagan banned the import of kangaroo parts in a law design to protect endangered species from around the world.
The ban lived on relatively unnoticed until 2003 when a vegetarian activist group, Viva! USA, sued adidas over its importation and sale of kangaroo-skin soccer boots.
The Australian government backed adidas in that lawsuit and in 2007, after adidas had spent $US435,000 in lobbying, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law allowing the importation of kangaroo parts from species not deemed to be threatened.
That law is set expire at the end of the year, and now the KIAA is doing battle with the Humane Society to stop the ban being reintroduced.
The KIAA has found a champion in California state representative Mike Gipson, who pulled neat a trick on the industry's behalf - a trick aptly known in Californian politics as "gut and amend".
Last week he took an act designed to "amend the business and profession code, relating to gambling" and converted it to one designed to "amend section 6530 of the penal code, relating to imported animals".
Should the bill pass it would permanently lift the ban on the importation of kangaroo parts, even those harvested from endangered species.
And a win in California would be significant. Not only is California at the forefront of the animal-rights movement in America, it has the largest economy in the nation. Indeed, California has the eighth-largest economy in the world. Activists hope that major manufacturers would simply abandon the use of kangaroo leather if the ban is reintroduced in California.
The Humane Society is outraged. Its lobbyist, Jennifer Fearing, told Fairfax Media that the "gut and amend" tactic was dishonest.
And she says it is possible the Australian government has broken California law by failing to disclose that it had provided $A143,000 to the KIAA to hire lobbyists Manatt, Phelps and Phillips.
A formal complaint has been lodged with California's corruption watchdog, asserting that: "In what appears to be a clear attempt to obscure a foreign government's lobbying activities to repeal an necessary animal-protection statute, the government of Australian may be using the KIAA as a shield. Such a scheme could very well violate the letter and purpose of the California Political Reform Act."
The Australian embassy has not yet responded to a request for comment, though earlier this year ambassador Kim Beazley was quoted as saying, "The Australian government wishes to grow our strong economic ties by removing unnecessary trade barriers that are not grounded on science.
"A temporary solution has been in place for years and it is now time to adopt a permanent resolution."
Wayne Pacelle, the chief executive of the Humane Society, said the group opposed the commercial sale of kangaroo products for many reasons.
Firstly, there was evidence that the industry's claims that kangaroo numbers were sustainable were wrong, he said.
Secondly, the society opposes all commercial harvesting of wild animals, because it was difficult to restrain industries once they were developed, he said.
In the American experience huge wild animal populations, such as bison and the passenger pigeon, had been destroyed by commercial harvesting.
The organisation was concerned that the animals' suffering could not be prevented in the process of hunting, he said.
"It's done at night, it would be easy for an animal to be hit in the neck and body and skitter away," he said.
Ms Fearing said that shooting kangaroos appalled some Americans due to their sheer beauty and their status as an emblematic animal.
"It's like harvesting the bald eagle," she said.
The Sacramento Bee seemed unimpressed too.
"We don't cast judgment on the stalking, slaughter, gutting, skinning and sale of kangaroos, although joeys are awfully cute, as Gipson saw when he petted one in the Capitol earlier this year," read a Sacramento Bee editorial published on Tuesday.
"We no longer hold it against the Aussies that they assaulted our ears with Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport.
"But if Gipson believes in the economic significance of the kangaroo trade, he should make that case in the regular course of legislative business, and not gut the process like some hapless marsupial with a marketable hide."
Follow FairfaxForeign on Twitter
Follow FairfaxForeign on Facebook