lavender finches

[TomDeGraaff]

Re Castaneothorax's post, I didn't quite follow it all but the point I would make is that the federal bureaucrats have never really had a handle on anything on this issue. They produced a list for the NEBRS way back in time but that was always full of holes hence things like Peters Twinspots had to be added later. They even left off the currasows and condors in the zoo system at the start. The whole thing was a botch-up. This more recent scheme is no better. Their "publicity" campaigns were never effective and I wrote to them advising same. An amnesty was refused repeatedly. To remedy the situation for themselves, the traditional Westminster system of "innocent until proven guilty" was reversed and now an owner is assumed guilty of keeping an "illegal" bird unless they can prove themselves innocent! Meanwhile, the enforcement officers can wave a piece of paper, seize birds in situ and then sit on their hands, waiting for and hoping that the dna technology will catch up with lead-footed tactics. (sorry venting again!)

I realise they have international commitments and treaties to uphold. These are not really relevant to captive birds in a (now) closed quarantined country.

I too would love to keep lavenders one day. I don't consider them illegal. They were on the original NEBRS list. Nor can anyone prove that any species was NOT here legally then slipped through the limited advertising of the day. I don't even have faith in the terms "legal" or "illegal" species. Has this reverse onus of proof ever been tested?

There were assessments made of many species for categorisation of the species in categories of the NEBRS. I think I may still have them on a disc somewhere. Probably people of this forum who were involved could cast more light on them. They were distributed to the state councils for discussion those many decades ago. Funnily enough, in the intervening years, we have not seen vast flocks of Bengalese displacing sparrows, hordes of cordons crapping on statues or a glut of grenadiers stealing peoples lunches at the local park.

Naturally, I rave again and feel free to skip this post!!

[thewaxbill]

The reverse system of proof seems to be something the U.K as in common with you as birdkeepers here are guilty unless they can prove different.
I have a friend who was accused of keeping illegal native birds, these birds were close rung with the correct rings, and the breeder who he bought them off came to court and provided video footage of the birds breeding in his aviary yet this was all discounted because he could not prove the parents of these birds were legally in captivity,altough the prosecution could not prove otherwise yet he was found guilty.
Regards the Lavenders and other birds if it comes to that here in the U.K birds that are banned from being imported can still be imported under special license for research, this usually means places such as zoos universities etc, these establishments do often work with private breeders and can be a way of getting birds, i do not now if this kind of thing is allowed by your authorities though.
Regards Bob

[arthur]

The reverse system of proof seems to be something the U.K as in common with you as birdkeepers here are guilty unless they can prove different.
I have a friend who was accused of keeping illegal native birds, these birds were close rung with the correct rings, and the breeder who he bought them off came to court and provided video footage of the birds breeding in his aviary yet this was all discounted because he could not prove the parents of these birds were legally in captivity,altough the prosecution could not prove otherwise yet he was found guilty.

Great system . .

Saves the 'authorities'(?) a great deal of work

Great for victimisation . . Not that those same 'authorities'(?) would stoop to that level

But 'British Justice' it is NOT