Well, that's dampened my mood.

[finchbreeder]

Aviculturists/birdkeepers politically incorrect? Surely you jest?
LML

[Nrg800]

there is a tiny handful remnant species of birds in australian zoos (all functionally extinct mind you) that are not sourced directly from legally traded aviculture (condors, flamingos, rhea, crowned pigeons and curassow) and thats it.

Unfortunatly now, we are out of Flamingos, have two male Crowned Pigeons, and under five (if any) Curassows, The Condors aren't viable, all birds from two pairs. I think we should stick with Natives...

[toothlessjaws]

Unfortunatly now, we are out of Flamingos, have two male Crowned Pigeons, and under five (if any) Curassows, The Condors aren't viable, all birds from two pairs. I think we should stick with Natives...

there is still to my knowledge an ancient chilean and even ancienter greater flamingo residing at the adelaide zoo

correct only crowned pigeons both being male.

sadly there is only one razor-billed curassow.

the condors are actually from just one imported pair. and the breeding birds at taronga are full siblings of this pair. their offspring are thus highly inbred.

there are also some greater rhea at a few parks but after decades of inbreeding they seems to be infertile.

[GregH]

i assume you are arguing that these birds should be allowed to be kept in private non-zoo licensed hands?

because firstly - zoo animals are not in quarantine. rather they have been quarantined. as you rightly said once on display the risks are just as great as in someones backyard. the difference between a legally zoo imported animal and a smuggled one is that the animal has not gone through the appropriate pre export and post export quarantine and testing that zoo animals have.

secondly, zoos have been burdened under just as strict import guidelines as the private sector - there is a tiny handful remnant species of birds in australian zoos (all functionally extinct mind you) that are not sourced directly from legally traded aviculture (condors, flamingos, rhea, crowned pigeons and curassow) and thats it. however the reason that zoos should be the priority for housing any confiscated birds is because of this:

a) most zoos have approved quarantine facilities.
b) all ZAA zoos will quarantine and screen any animals handed over to them with the utmost priority. and lastly...
c) giving the birds to a ZAA member zoos does not benefit the private avicultural sector. the birds will not be moved onto the list of species recognised as legally being kept by private individuals and thus continues to deliver reduced incentives for people to continue to smuggle in birds. ZAA zoos do not sell animals to each other, instead loaning, swapping or gifting them to one another as part of co-operative breeding programs to the benefit of the species.

i as much as anyone see the hypocrisy in some of the wildlife laws. but there is common sense in not allowing smuggled birds immediate (if ever) access back into the avicultural market and restricting their allocation to ZAA accredited zoos.

Toothless I'm not arguing that known smuggled birds should be allowed directly onto the market but I am against the needless destruction of animals that can easily find a home and offer no risk to the biosecurity of the nation. The list of animals wanted to be imported by ZAA is much more extensive than birds as so many mammal species are facing the same problem and it seems only the charismatic ones like elephants or pandas, not to mention dogs, cats and race horses, are exempt from these rules.

If someone illegally “smuggles” in non-biological material it isn’t destroyed it is confiscated, the importer faces a fine or goes to jail and that is the disincentive not to do it. Contraband held by the government is auctioned off and that partly pays for regulatory control. Not that I want to but I won’t be bringing my birds back to Australia because I don’t want to be fined and go to jail and I don’t want to risk them being confiscated and destroyed. This is my disincentive but it hasn’t been enough to stop others and I’m certainly against unregulated and unpoliced imports. If however birds do get in then by all means confiscate them, goal the offender if necessary however if it’s been a few years since the import and they are demonstratably disease free then there is no reason to destroy them.

I can’t accept welfare as being the principle reason for discouraging aviculturists either. In the case of foreign finches show me one zoo that doesn’t rely on the private sector for their stock? The expertise in keep in and breeding these animals is more likely to be found in private hands than in any ZAA handbook. Having a licensed quarantine facility hasn’t prevented good aviculturists from implementing their own quarantine procedures.

Legitimate imports could start tomorrow it the government allowed it and would represent far less of quarantine risk than the hundreds of thousands of people that fly into our country every week.

[jusdeb]

Perhaps if Govt positions were filled by people qualified to fulfill the job description instead of dills just going through the ranks then decisions might be made based on a different perspective.

[toothlessjaws]

Toothless I'm not arguing that known smuggled birds should be allowed directly onto the market but I am against the needless destruction of animals that can easily find a home and offer no risk to the biosecurity of the nation.

of course i wholeheartedly agree. my point is simply that i think its a bit premature to speculate that these birds will be destroyed. what has happened is that a reporter has focused on DEWHA euthanasia policies and ignored the other policies of where-applicable, offering the animals to appropriate homes in ZAA zoos.

The list of animals wanted to be imported by ZAA is much more extensive than birds as so many mammal species are facing the same problem and it seems only the charismatic ones like elephants or pandas, not to mention dogs, cats and race horses, are exempt from these rules.

well the situation isn't that simple. currently some types of animals are far easier to get approval for import than others. the zoos naturally take advantage of this, however what you may not know is that they nonetheless work tirelessly to get approval to import others. pandas are relatively easy as most carnivores have a comparatively easy approval process. birds as you know are terribly difficult. there has been an application sitting on biosecurity australia's desk to import flamingos and crowned cranes for what must be 6 or more years. an even bigger priority (due to the fact that unlike exotic birds the zoos already have vast collections in desperate need of new bloodlines) are the overturn of the severe restrictions on artiodactyls. with the exception of a giraffe-from-new zealand-loophole the last import of artiodactyls was, i believe, in the mid 90's. as a result the breeding programs for everything from hippos to antelopes to peccaries have been severely compromised. so the zoos are working very hard to get approval to import a lot of animals, most are species they currently maintain and wish to continue to maintain and others such as pandas are species that are easily slotted into existing process' (though personally i don't think pandas are worth the trouble/expenses).

If someone illegally “smuggles” in non-biological material it isn’t destroyed it is confiscated, the importer faces a fine or goes to jail and that is the disincentive not to do it. Contraband held by the government is auctioned off and that partly pays for regulatory control. Not that I want to but I won’t be bringing my birds back to Australia because I don’t want to be fined and go to jail and I don’t want to risk them being confiscated and destroyed. This is my disincentive but it hasn’t been enough to stop others and I’m certainly against unregulated and unpoliced imports. If however birds do get in then by all means confiscate them, goal the offender if necessary however if it’s been a few years since the import and they are demonstratably disease free then there is no reason to destroy them.

the main issue here is however that the birds, once confiscated, require a testing and quarantining if they are going to be kept alive. the argument that "they have been here for many years" doesn't stick because as far as biosecurity is concerned the only proof of this is the word of the person who illegally holds them (which is not credible) and even if they have been in the country for some time that does not equate to a clean bill of health or mean that they do not carry any diseases that pose a risk. the animals will still need to undergo the lengthy process' required to get the all clear and that costs a lot of money. the only incentive that biosecurity thus have to keep them alive are the status of the species with CITES, and the willingness of an approved (preferably statutory) zoo to care for them. if the animals are exceptionally rare they also have the policy option of repatriation.

in addition many of the birds are likely to be species not currently on the list of exotic species legally kept privately by aviculturalists. so releasing such species into the private market is akin to releasing say, ocelots to a domestic cat breeder. and for ever more accepting that ocelots can be legally kept as pets - which ultimately whilst not rewarding the smuggler still rewards the industry that produced the smuggler. yes, its silly to allow a person to keep one species of conure but not another as the risks to the environment if released are the same - but thats not what the policy is about. its about not changing policy to allow a new species into the public pet market just because some idiot smuggled them into the country.

I can’t accept welfare as being the principle reason for discouraging aviculturists either. In the case of foreign finches show me one zoo that doesn’t rely on the private sector for their stock? The expertise in keep in and breeding these animals is more likely to be found in private hands than in any ZAA handbook.

australian aviculture, as you well know is full of exporters, mutation breeders, selfish hoarders, fads, hybridisers and most of all monetary transactions. whilst there are always some very genuinely respectable breeders there is always a lot more who are not. that is NOT an appropriate community to be entrusting endangered species. ZAA zoos are a far more appropriate place. zoos rely on the private sector for exotic avicultural stock because they are forced to. likewise they may not have written the handbook on finches but again that doesn't mean those that did have a right to opportunistically profit from another's smuggling attempt.

Having a licensed quarantine facility hasn’t prevented good aviculturists from implementing their own quarantine procedures.

given the context of our discussion this can only be interpreted one way and i for one think its ridiculous statement to suggest we could entrust a private individual with something as important as australia's biosecurity.

Legitimate imports could start tomorrow it the government allowed it and would represent far less of quarantine risk than the hundreds of thousands of people that fly into our country every day.

absolutely agree. and i for one would LOVE to see legitimate imports of not just the bird species we already have in aviculture but new ones as well. and yes the risks associated with air travel (to an extent) and even worse the aquarium industry (which DOES place the onus of quarantine on the private individual!) make the restrictions on birds seem completely contradictory - however i'd rather see those improved than the policies regarding confiscated birds relaxed.

anyhow i hope that i have somehow enlightened you on how i see the issue and you don't take me as simply being argumentative. i genuinely see logic in the policies of the DEWHA regarding confiscations.

[Tiaris]

With the exception of Tucuman's Amazon all the parrot species in the confiscated list are already privately held in Australia.

[toothlessjaws]

With the exception of Tucuman's Amazon all the parrot species in the confiscated list are already privately held in Australia.

well then take warmth from the knowledge that should they end up in zoos then their genes will eventually find their way into the avicultural population since the birds are legally kept here.

[Tiaris]

australian aviculture, as you well know is full of exporters, mutation breeders, selfish hoarders, fads, hybridisers and most of all monetary transactions. whilst there are always some very genuinely respectable breeders there is always a lot more who are not. that is NOT an appropriate community to be entrusting endangered species. ZAA zoos are a far more appropriate place. zoos rely on the private sector for exotic avicultural stock because they are forced to. likewise they may not have written the handbook on finches but again that doesn't mean those that did have a right to opportunistically profit from another's smuggling attempt.

And zoos are full of indoctrinated disciples of bureaucracy and, more crucially, people who are nowhere near as skilled in the propogation of birds (including endangered species) as are the best specialist private aviculturists in Australia. Surely endangered species deserve to placed where they have the best prospects of their numbers being increased. I know that this not at all a priority of any government regulations pertaining to aviculture as it contains a strong element of commonsense.

[wagga]

Surely we all can have an opinion on this subject without line by line scrutiny. I understand corrections should be made for obvious mistakes. Then again, if I dont like a response I can reply or ignore it.
I have learnt alot of new info concerning this subject, so thumbs up everyone.