Aussie Finch Forum

We all know that taking birds from the wild is against the law . .

But the law is a strange critter, that some have likened to one of the asinine persuasion

And 'morality' and 'legality' somewhat confusingly, may well not correspond




To begin some kind of debate; and for no other reason . . It is hard to refute that:

" Every finch, now held in captivity, has been taken from the wild . . or is descended from those that were . ."

My issue with trapping is this,

You get the f wits trapping 6000 double bars n red brows. They take to the sale or on gumtree and some jimmy rocks up and buys them thinking the split ring on the leg means they are aviary bred. None breed most die then one whole generation of birds is cleared.

If its for a reason and goes to educated people with everything up front this is slightly different. Moderation is the key.

I see this in my local red brows. Some years they are in huge numbers then they vanish for 3 yrs n come back in small groups that take yrs to build up.

Trappers say "i only take the young ones"....like that makes it ok. Ive caught red brows in my traps when trying for goldfinches. I make n sell traps also. I just catch the reddies and let em go. They are way too nervous.

If a yellow red brow fell in my trap id keep it. No point letting a butcher bird eat it.

Is it true that in South Australia such a mutation is allowed, with permission of course, to be trapped because the bird will be killed through predation anyway. ?? Just another inconsistency from state to state?

elferoz777 wrote: 21 Apr 2017, 21:23 My issue with trapping

So it's OK to trap Goldies, but not Reddies . . unless they're Yellowies

These issues can get complex . .

Just playing Devil's Advocate

wagga wrote: 21 Apr 2017, 22:16 Just another inconsistency from state to state?

Trapping of mutations used to be kosher in Qld many years ago . .

In fact the 'white' Black Swans at Gorge W-life Park were bred from a Qld bird taken 'legally"/ morally(?)

But no longer is this the case . .

These issues can get complex

Very complex. For instance. Would it be moral to take say 6-10 of finch x from the wild while releasing the same number of the same type from your avairy? The purpose of course would be to diversify the genetic material of both avairy and wild populations.
LML

arthur wrote: 21 Apr 2017, 22:36

wagga wrote: 21 Apr 2017, 22:16 Just another inconsistency from state to state?

Trapping of mutations used to be kosher in Qld many years ago . .

In fact the 'white' Black Swans at Gorge W-life Park were bred from a Qld bird taken 'legally"/ morally(?)

But no longer is this the case . .

These issues can get complex

And I can vaguely remember a case in Victoria where someone charged with keeping Gang-Gangs sans permit, claimed that the birds had been bred from legally trapped mutation parents, which had since died . .

So it must have been 'kosher' in the state of 'excitement' at one stage as well

Is it morally right to release a bird that has spent all its life in a aviary then release it in the wild ? Eg gouldians are in Q.L.D never to be seen again Mareeba wetlands release in the 100s if not 1000s. Orange bellied parrots also these are a few we are all familiar with. Very high mortality rates but accepted morally or are they not ?

Then we are talking about the mallee emu wren using the rufous or southern taken out of the wild and put into private aviary's not moral ? Im sure there are many cases of this happening that we are unaware of.

The first few examples are supposed to be for the survival of the bird in the wild. Thanks to private aviculturists who have got the original stock from the wild,as all native stock originated from. And the emu wren is about taken from the wild.It seems to be a contradiction though doesn't it.

I am pretty sure in the N.T you can go to the National Parks and get a permit for just about what ever you want to take out of the wild so I have been told sounds a bit relaxed up north.No real benefit there that I can see maybe it is to establish new species or blood into the current stock.

Not aware of my hypothetical ever having been done. Was just querying. So to be doing the "right" thing one would need to take 5 and release 15 to allow for losses. Hmm But would it be the right thing? ------- Re the guy with the Gang Gangs, easy fix. Aust wide law, mutation birds can be taken into avairys, must be licenced within 1 month. If no licence no right to keep offspring. Problem solved for the birds and the authorities.
LML

The law says we can't take native wildlife from the wild. Its a law found almost all over the wild and its pretty obvious as to why that law exists. It makes sense. Poaching is the primary reason many species, including birds, are on the brink of extinction.

Should the law create an exploitable loophole for hobbyists who like breeding mutations? I don't see why it should. From an environmental point of view mutations are how species adapt and evolve. And colour mutations can sometime become an established normality for a species if it is advantageous or of neutral effect. Take melanism in Leopards and Jaguars or the head colours of gouldians. These are basic colour mutations that are not disadvantageous. These would not have become established in the wild if people were allowed to remove them.

So you see a white red-brow. Okay, we all know thats probably not going to survive long. And you decide to take it. Fine. But i don't see why the law is flawed or confusing or nonsensical just because it doesn't care about an individuals desire to have a white red-brow as a pet. I'm kinda glad it doesn't make stupid little exemptions that are asking for exploitation.