Rare birds facing death - if they can be found Seems a shame. I don't know what species and what condition they are in - but maybe one of our resident zoo professionals can make some enquiries.
Blue-headed Macaw[?] 5 Blue-headed Pionus 1 Bronze-wing Pionus 3 Buffons Macaw 5 Crimson-bellied Conure 16 Cuban Amazon 18 Illigers Macaw 8 Hawk-headed Parrot 5 Hyacinth Macaw 6 Moluccan Cockatoo 8 Patagonian Conure 6 Red-browed Amazon 3 Red-fronted Macaw 16 Rose-crown Conure 33 Severe Macaw 4 Tucuman's Amazon 6 Umbrella Cockatoo 8 White-fronted Amazon 17 Yellow-naped Amazon 5 DEWHA policy for the disposal of these birds is to; a) place them in an ARAZPA zoo or b) return them to their country of origin or c) euthanase them. a) There are no ARAZPA regional programs for any of these species and no zoo [according to the Census and Plan] is interested in any of them except Adelaide which wants 0:2:0 Hyacinthine Macaws. Only ARAZPA zoos are good enough to receive them. Any of the rest of us who specialise in neotropical psittacines, for example, are not worthy to receive them. b) Returning them to their country of origin is a furphy designed to make us look good in the UN's eyes. Australia IS the country of origin for many of these birds. They were bred here! Any that weren't were "imported" so long ago that there provenance would now be unknown. I have no idea whether they were really smuggled or not. I do know that they have been in this country for a long time. Things were different back in the days when they were imported. I also know that, in all the time that they have been here they have NOT been the source of any terrible disease outbreaks. This, despite the fact that their progeny have been sold by Mr Schwarzenberg all over the country for many years. I'm told that Mr Schwarzenberg, like a great many other exotic bird breeders, had no confidence in the government and so did not register his birds under NEBRS. That doesn't make them illegal except in the eyes of the government. As NEBRS was disbanded after a few years when it proved that bird breeders weren't necessarily crooks, perhaps he made a wise choice. Many, many bird breeders have failed to take part in the present scheme for the same reason. Does that mean that their birds are all "smuggled"? I don't think so. c) Euthanasia is the government's preferred option. During the EBAG process the government would permit no discussion on the future of so called "black hole" birds such as these. Birds for which there was no paper trail. They said many times that euthanasia was the best way to solve the problem. I sincerely hope that some of you will be horrified at this story. Horrified because it shows that British justice has now been reversed in this country by stealth. You are not "innocent until proven guilty" any more. You are now guilty if the Feds say you are and you have 30 days in which to prove your innocence. Horrified also at the thought that our new "green" government with it's high profile environment minister will willingly slaughter so many beautiful, genetically valuable birds - many of which are CITES 1 listed. Only people power can save them
This is ********! A zoo is a zoo. I find it incredibly stupid that the likes of Taronga Western Plains Zoo, National Zoo and Aquarium and Mogo Zoo Could easily take these birds because they are in ARAZPA even though none of them have much in the way of birds at all where a private non - ARAZPA zoo with experience won't even get a look in.
this is absolute rubish and abosolutly horrifying. a)most of these birds are held by large breeders and i have seen yellow napped amazons at bird shows for sale. and u could quarentee that most of these are held and bread by large breeders quite readily. b)and there are alot of macaws and large exotic parrots floating around not in nerbs (or wat ever its current form is) this is becourse they wont u to fill out abit of paper work. and alot of large breeders dont have the time to fill the paper work out nor do they want to when they may have a far few birds that would need to be registered . c) and from wat i have read and been told the last i herd of this you didnt have to have your birds registered by nerbs or equivalant it was your choice. But this may well have changed. there are many private large bird collections around, and most of the breeders sell or swap birds between them all the time and these breeders would put most aussie zoos to shame with there collections. this is just plain stupid if wat steve said is true about them being put down that is ridiculouse. sorry for any spelling mistakes
Governments concern on conservation is farcial at best. To me this is another example of the antipithy that the Aust. Govts hold towards private bird keepers. The idea that birds should be killed if found is just wrong. That the main zoos have a **** collection of birds and are unlikely to take these birds in shows them in a bad light.
sure, nobody here wants to see a collection of rare birds destroyed. but i for one consider the black market smuggling of birds (and reptiles) in and out of this country to be a serious issue and one that needs addressing. now, i'm not really that familiar with the ins and outs of the NEBRS, but it was my understanding that it was an amnesty - and thus i do wonder what the logic was behind this man choosing not to participate in it. too much paperwork, as brad09 suggested, is not a valid excuse in my eyes. nor is simply having "no faith" that the scheme would be effective. more likely i think there was a concern his birds would be confiscated. which they eventually were - but i'm assuming they were confiscated as they were now held illegally, which they wouldn't have been, had they been submitted to the list of known exotics in the country compiled prior to the commencement of the scheme, and then registered. since this guy had so many birds and was such i high profile breeder - i just think that refusing to play ball got him into this stupid predicament.
Why do we have to kill them, they didn't chose to come here. They should be shared around zoos and trusted breeders.
I could care less about why Mr Schwarzenberg did [or didn't do] what ever he did. I don't give a damn about what happens to him now. I've never met the bloke or ever had any contact with him. My concern is for the birds. Read the list - that's a lot of rare and beautiful birds who didn't ask to get into this mess. Rare and beautiful birds that don't need to be killed - they could be housed in Australian zoos at the drop of a hat. Not just ARAZPA zoos. Why should they have a monopoly on these birds when, except for two Hyacinthine hens, they have never flagged any interest in these species. What makes ARAZPA zoos so special? They are licensed in exactly the same way that the rest of us are - no more and no less. Sure, the birds would all have to be tested for nasty diseases. That can be done comparatively easily. So far they have not shown any signs of diseases and some of them were born here and others have been in this country for a long while. As Mr Schwarzenberg is a bird trader, the progeny of some of these seized birds have been sold all over Australia. No point in shutting the stable door now - that horse has well and truly bolted. I understand fully that DEWHA has an obligation under the CITES protocols that people should not be seen to be profiting from smuggling. That is why I am NOT advocating that these birds be dispersed among the avicultural community where they, and their offspring could be sold. My proposal is that they should be kept within Australian zoos but not exclusively ARAZPA zoos. To give ARAZPA that monopoly could well be challenged in our Courts on discriminatory and anti-competitive grounds.
Steve, I agree so many rare and endangered birds on the list. It is a shameful shambles. I suggest we involve TRAFFIC and IUCN Parrot Specialist Group. The Al Wabra Wildlife Park as a way-station comes also to mind. They would definitely take all the birds ... and provide good quality housing for them. Write in pm or e-mail. Cheers, K.B.
i agree these birds should be taken into zoos and dispersed. i do not no much about nerbs or the equvalent all i know is that one was bought in to combat smuggling of large exotic birds like maccaws (witch was needed and a good idea) but it had its down falls if memory serves me right. And if i remeber correctly if it is nerbs or if it has a new name there was an article in birkeeper a few years ago. explaining to people wat it was and why they bought it in. but going by breeders it was quit hard to register unregitered birds without the propper paper work witch some breeders lacked. so at the time of this article people were saying that somthing very similar would happen ps i would like to know if these birds were smuggled or breed here becourse i suspect there are a few birds, out there that have been breed here from legal parrents. That would not be registered and may well be viewed as smuggled or illegal birds. witch could course major problems for there species
Who is managing this Arazpa? Why don't we contact Cities itself? if not there will be thousands of conservation groups that would campaign for the birds hopefully something will be done!
hey steve i get what your saying, but its worth remembering that... firstly, the ARAZPA census and plan has to be taken with a grain of salt. much of the species zoos list as intending to acquire are not even pursued, and scratched a year later as a new directors priorities change. since we are talking about birds held in the private aviculture market - i'm not slightly surprised that they don't list intentions to keep them on the census and plan. but likewise just as adelaide zoo opportunistically took the chance to acquire some hyacinth macaws - it wouldn't surprise me if some of the birds were snapped up by zoos. secondly, and i know this is close to your heart, but private zoos operate rather differently that public statutory ones. and ARAZPA zoos have (or at least should have) certain guidelines regarding dispositions. know i see the irony that our major zoos rely completely on the private market to acquire exotic birds, but nonetheless i see no problem with the birds being offered exclusively to ARAZPA (and preferably public owned) zoos. why? well, you breed a few of exotic parrots right? well say they gave them to you, how is it any different from giving them to me? both of us can potentially benefit from them commercially. both of us are just private individuals with no affiliation to any zoo or association. you own some monkeys and lions and things that i don't own, but nothing is stopping you from making money from the sale of your animals - indeed i suspect you do sell your macaws and other birds you breed. now i believe you're driven by a desire not to see these rare birds destroyed for no good reason, but you get what i'm saying? by offering the animals to private individuals outside of the zoo association you are just taking them off one private individual and placing them in the hands of another. it defeats the purpose of confiscation in the first place.
Are you saying that ARAZPA zoos don't trade [ie: sell] saleable stock? Like macaws and black-headed pythons? To name just a couple. I'm saying that these birds should be placed in zoos [not just ARAZPA zoos because we are all subject to the same regulatory requirements] and that they and their progeny should be able to be moved around between zoos to perpetuate these species in this country. There will be no dollar value attached to them - they can NOT be sold and they can not be transferred out of the licensed zoo system. Certainly the ASMP is very rubbery but if we look at it right now - there is virtually no ARAZPA interest in these birds. There are no management programs for any of these species. So why restrict their placement to ARAZPA institutions? There is a great deal of interest from the Darling Downs Zoo in saving every one of these birds. If it makes DEWHA any happier, the DDZ is in the process of applying to join ARAZPA. Had we already been a member, the ASMP would reflect our plans for the species now at risk of being slaughtered.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, kid. But let me be quite clear - this is NOT an ARAZPA bashing exercise. They did not set the DEWHA policy - they will only be the beneficiaries of it. I'm saying that the DEWHA policy should, and very safely could, be widened a bit.
right. i think what you're saying is that you would hold the birds legally and would be unable to trade them commercially as you would hold them under a zoo license? correct? this makes sense for the species of birds that are not held anywhere in the country under the NEBRS. i get that. but where i am coming from was that i thought many of the above mentioned species are legally held by others, such as umbrella cockatoos and hyacinth macaws. because in that case you or any other small zoo who was donated birds, could legally sell them straight back into the private market right? it makes sense that the rare exotics not legally traded in aviculture could be placed under a zoo licensing system, be them ARAZPA members or not - as a successful method of removing them from the private market (and any financial gain associated with such) without the need of culling them. but that isn't that case if the species is already legally established in aviculture.
If this is a concern of the Department, I'm sure a work-around can be achieved. Why not have the Department simply place the birds on permanent loan to Darling Downs Zoo? They have been seized and are currently Crown property. That way, the Department still owns both the birds and any progeny and can prevent them from entering the private sector if they wish. Easy solution.
Yes, logistically they are definitely first option. It just is a all else fails approach and quite frankly international pressure does often help ... to bring an otherwise intransigent authority to think outside the box!
That is all that I am asking. That ALL zoos be considered as repositories for these birds to avoid the needless slaughter of so many rare, endangered, genetically valuable, beautiful [and innocent] birds. We have to get this right. There are a lot of other birds currently seized in situ. If the eventual court cases go the same way as this one we are talking about the possibility of over a thousand CITES1 and CITES2 birds being slaughtered. Surely that contravenes the spirit of CITES if not the actual wording?
