Whilst I almost always agree with Patrick , in this case, I have to disagree, although I'm guessing Pat is just being "loose" with his words in this case! We are not stingy with exporting, but we are very cautious, and well-known overseas for our lengthy export permitting process, particularly for native fauna. There's good reasons for this: We are one of the few countries where importing and exporting from/to animal dealers is banned - this of course, is a good thing. We have a large number of unique wildlife species that are highly sought-after overseas, and as you would expect, we receive many, many requests from overseas zoos for our wildlife. Our exporting authorities will not allow us to deal with overseas institutions that do not meet high standards, and many zoos have been refused permits because of this (I'm not going to debate the institutional approval process, that's a whole other topic!). When attempting to export the most frequently-requested species, koala, platypus, wombat or Tasmanian devil, or an animal of an eligible listed threatened species, the exporter, the importer and the Department enter into an agreement (Ambassador Agreement) about the treatment and disposal of the animal and any progeny of the animal. The request to sign an Ambassador Agreement has been refused by some overseas zoos, and this also reduces the number of exports of native fauna. More information about DEH's export guidelines can be found here: Guide to the import and export of wildlife specimens for non-commercial purposes Having been involved in the export process for many native animals in the past, I know how involved the process is, and I also know how our processes are perceived overseas. But if that's what it takes to help limit the export of our native fauna, and the way our fauna is perceived overseas, then I think it is a good thing. It may be a little over the top, but overall, I think it has merit.