Legalising Exotic Reptiles in Aust. (again)

exotics as pets
29-11-2008

Just to add to the mix.

The aspect that concerns me is that if keeping exotic reptiles was reviewed and the laws relaxed to allow selected/licensed people to keep these animals it may create a precedent for people wanting to keep exotic mammals or birds.
The thought of my neighbours having an exotic cat or primate fills me with a special dred has been experienced by some folks in the USA. Who can forget the stories of tigers living in New York apartments and their owner being seriously injured by them? But what isn't clearly documented is the whereabouts of animals like this after they were confiscated.
Therefore, the second part of my concern is where will these animals be housed in the event their owners are unable to care for them - be that reptile, mammal or bird?

29-11-2008

Why have concerns about something that will never happen, the public in Aust will never be allowed to own exotic cats as they do in the USA, we even have a list in this country of banned dog breeds so the owning of Tigers, Lions and other exotics by the public will never happen, and should not happen.

29-11-2008

That's rubbish. The govt is well aware of the problem, but they don't want exotic reptiles in Australia, which is why they won't legalise them. That would be like rewarding criminal behaviour because it's simply too big a problem.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.



Hix

29-11-2008

G'day Hix,

Regulating the keeping of exotics reduces the risk significantly because the authorities would [should] then know where these damn things are. That is if the licensing is fair dinkum and not the revenue raising exercise that it is in some States at the moment. At the moment we have a defacto type of licensing anyhow with the reptiles declared under the various amnesties being recorded and subject to audit.

Licensing involves permanent identification so if a large boid turns up somewhere, a quick scan will soon identify it's erstwhile owner. My concept of licensing extends only to boids, iguanas, tortoises, turtles and, of course, corn snakes! I fail to see why anyone, other than zoos, should [or would want to] be allowed to keep exotic venomous reptiles. As a matter of fact I also have grave reservations about private people holding venomous indigenous snakes too - but that's another subject for another day.

Cane Toads? That's way off track. They're not out there because someone was keeping them as pets.

29-11-2008

Hi pongogirl,

As MARK has said, licensing of exotic mammals to private owners ain't going to happen. No way, no how, not ever.

Exotic birds are already well and truly here and identification and licensing of those birds is well under way. Exotic reptiles could be regulated in pretty much the same way.

The second part of your concern is very relevant to this discussion. The EPBC Act very clearly defines the government's preferred action for the disposal of seized animals as - EUTHANASIA.

This subject was not even allowed to be discussed during the Fed's recent EBAG dialogue. Subsequently, some seized birds have ended up in some zoos but it is still a major concern to some of us that even CITES 1 birds could yet be euthanised.

29-11-2008

G'day [again] Hix,

Continuing to agree to disagree!

In part they have legalised them with the amnesties.

Are you saying that the amnesties have had the effect of "... rewarding criminal behaviour"...?

It is a big problem [ much bigger than the perceived exotic bird "problem" ] and the government is going to have to bite the bullet sooner rather than later. The bird industry was told during the EBAG deliberations that the new exotic bird licensing requirements could become the template for future exotic reptile licensing. Time will tell!

29-11-2008

Steve,

I can't speak for Qld amnesties because I don't know what the EPA was doing with them. The last amnesty held about 5 years ago (because the EPBC had been amended to include a clause placing the evidentiary burden on the defendent) was a federal amnesty held nationwide and the animals were all euthanised.

CITES 1 birds are not likely to be euthanised under the EPBC Act - the recommendation is that they be re-exported ASAP.

And as for Cane Toads - I was illustrating the damage that can be done by an introduced species. Most Australians relate to Cane Toads in Australia, as opposed to Brown Tree Snakes in Guam or Red-eared Sliders in China.

Continuing to agree to disagree, only because I can see nobody here is going to change their mind!



Hix

29-11-2008

Ah - the "reverse onus of proof"

I wonder how many Australians are aware that their former legal rights have been quietly stripped away from them in so many areas.

Whereas, in the good old days, you were innocent until proven guilty [except under ATO law], now you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent under a great deal of our legislation.

Worse ...... whereas formerly your accusers could take forever to mount a case against you, now you can be given as little as 30 days to prove your innocence.

Few, if any exotic reptiles were euthanised under any of the State amnesties. One of the reasons why so many were declared was that owners were told that they could keep their declared reptiles.

Birds, CITES 1 or otherwise will not be repatriated no matter what the recommendation is. First problem is that some of the seizures are decidedly dodgy and have come about because the government has invoked the reverse onus of proof provisions and worn down the "defendant[s]" - not because they won a case against the bird owners. Secondly, the difficulty is in proving the origin of the birds if, in fact, they are here illegally. Next problem is to get the government of the country of origin to accept the birds back [and the costs involved in rehabilitating them]. Then what do you do with second and third generation birds - bred here from "illegally imported " birds? No overseas government is going to recognise them and thus have to incur the costs involved with their repatriation. No - it was made very clear to EBAG that euthanasia was the way to go and this stance was dressed up as "fulfilling our CITES obligations".

To get this thread back on track just read "reptile" wherever I've written "bird" and you can see how I think that this issue is going to unfold.

Don't give up on our amicable disagreement! Only 9 posters have given their views on this issue but over 140 viewers have checked it out. There could be a lot of folks out there still making up their minds on the subject. I know that my mind is receptive to different points of view - I don't pretend to know all the answers to this problem so I'm enjoying your posts.

Regards.

30-11-2008

I'm not giving up - it's just beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. I'm glad I can still entertain someobody! LOL.

But I can see some of the posters in this thread aren't going to change thier mind (I'm one of them) and I know, from other forums I've been on, discussions often go downhill from this point and can turn nasty. Not suggesting anyone here would behave that way, just thought it better to play it safe!

I can't speak for the EBAG as I haven't been involved with them. Admittedly, the repatriation option was in regards to seized animals that are known illegal imports - several options were considered and repatriation was one option recommended for endangered CITES 1 species (obviously, euthanasia wpuld be recommended for something like a new mutation of the Indian Ringneck, but I'd like to think that an Echo Parrot would not be put down as a matter of course).

While there are differences between birds recently illegally imported and birds currently established here, I think common sense is likely to still prevail throughout DEWR.



Hix

30-11-2008

Mmmm, perhaps Big Cats won't end up in private hands but there are already primates in private hands and I don't mean private zoos. I'm aware of monkeys that are in breeding arrangements and producing offspring that are being sold to people who can afford them not but not necessarily have primate care knowledge.

Some years ago, just after the EAPA amnesty on people who were keeping primates I was told confidentially of a wealthy Sydney resident who had several chimpanzees. If this is fact or fiction I don't know as I didn't see them but anything is possible!

30-11-2008

[quote=pongogirl.

Some years ago, just after the EAPA amnesty on people who were keeping primates I was told confidentially of a wealthy Sydney resident who had several chimpanzees. If this is fact or fiction I don't know as I didn't see them but anything is possible![/QUOTE]

Hi Pongogirl,

I would be very surprised if anyone could keep several Chimpanzees in Sydney without the authorities or neighbours knowing about them, they are not exactly a low key kind of animal with the kind of noise they can make.

01-12-2008

Hix.
Although a bit off topic a feel relevant to this comment. . . One of the main arguments used when promoting the legalisation of things like marijuana is that it allows authorities to monitor and control the substance. Legalising something will REDUCE the illegal sales. (using the above example) who is going to go out and spend $50 on pot and risk going to prison when they could get a licence and buy the product from a licenced seller, and for half the cost of getting something illegally. This would apply to exotic reptiles to. And a number of governments are considering this (plus licensing something means more revenue)

I agree with steve, glyn and ara. what we have in the country. Licence them, they can breed them and we can maintain a population within Australia, under the supervision of appropriate authorities. There may even be reptiles being kept privately that our zoos would love to get their hands on.

Also If peopleknow where they can find a male cobra to breed with their female there would be no need to smuggle in more to replace theirs when it dies. they could look up other licensed owners and organise breeding loans. Why risk going to prison if legalising it will make it an unnecessary risk.

01-12-2008

The primates that are held in non-zoo facilities [other than research collections] are held under the non-indigenous animal regulations and are licensed as such. Private people are not allowed to just go and buy a monkey from these facilities.

There were two groups of chimps held privately in Sydney some years ago. They were both held for commercial purposes. Some of you will remember Wally Walpamur of TV commercial fame. To the best of my knowledge [not always complete, I'll admit ] there are no more privately owned chimps in NSW. In fact, I think the last privately owned chimp in this country is Mr Muggins who is hale and hearty up here in sunny Queensland.

01-12-2008

Jarkari,

It's not the illegal sales per se that I'm concerned about - I'm more concerned about escapees establishing feral populations and diseased animals smuggled into Australia.

While your reasoning is good, unfortunately it is flawed. Your logic is based on the premise that evryone will do the right thing, and people don't want to risk the penalties of breaking the law.

Fact 1: Currently there are lots of people keeping exotic reptiles illegally, who don't care about the law or the penalties (I'm sure Steve, Ara and Glynn will agree with this fact).

Fact 2: In order to have a regulated, monitored licensing system, you will need funds. Many Government departments are cost-recoverable and have a 'user-pays' fee attached, and this would be one of them (the alternative would be taxpayer funded, and the general taxpayer who doesn't keep reptiles would be pissed off if they have to subsidise the people who do).

Question: Why would someone who currently doesn't care about the law or penalties, worry about the law or penalties when it becomes legal? The penalties won't change. What will change is the fact that he has to pay an annual fee. He doesn't do that now, so why do it in the future? He will need to send in records each year of what he has, what he has bred, what he has sold, who he sold it to, etc. (I can tell you from experience, this is something legal holders of native reptiles find very tiresome). If he gets a license, the authorities will know who he is, where he lives etc. They may come and visit, which means his records have to be up-to-date and accurate. If he doesn't comply with the regulations, he could lose his collection. Therefore -

Fact 3: By getting a license he has lost his anonymity, and places his collection at risk.

Fact 4: By legalising exotics, you will open up the hobby to the average person who does want to comply with the law. This will create great demand for many popular species (Chameleons, iguanas and corns spring to mind).

Conclusion: With comparative limited supplies in Australia there will be a shortage in animals available to meet demand. This will lead to people illegally importing animals in order to make a buck. Being registered means you can easily put on your books that you bred them, so the authorities are none the wiser.

Result: Lots more people are keeping exotics, including people who don't know what they are doing but want an interesting looking pet that is different, and will mean more and more accidental escapees, resulting to a greater threat to Australia's wildlife and ecology.



Hix

01-12-2008

The irony of the current situation is that there are many private people [illegally] holding exotic reptiles that are not permitted to be legally held by zoos in the once great State of Queensland. NO exotic venomous reptiles can be held in this State by zoos - none! Our government obviously has no faith in the ability of our professional reptile keepers or the zoos that employ them. But Joe Bloggs can keep all sorts of exotics in his living room and no-one is any the wiser.

I have seen photographic evidence of exotic reptiles in private hands in Australia of species that I am not aware of being held in zoos. Certainly some zoos would love to have access to some of those species.

You lost me on the cobra scenario Jarkari. I've mentioned earlier that I can see no justification at all for people keeping exotic [or indigenous] venomous snakes. Just my personal opinion.