Discussion in 'Australia' started by CGSwans, 19 Dec 2009.
Spot on! It's that simple.
I hope they can be moved somewhere safe; another example of how some people treat animals as disposable, IMO
i do not see why the govermonet could not have them tested for disease, and if clear release them back to either zoos or the trusted private breeders. I dont why there is ap problem with them being privatley owned, these birds would have massive price tags for them. And most breeders that by them have top notch cages. Even to the point where when i first went to taronga a couple of years ago me and dad thought that there cages for some birds were preety ordinarry (these were not the big walk in ones but the ones that had sun conures in and other birdes.) compared to the massive complexes that cost thousands of dalloars that get constructed for there birds. so i dont see why these birds if cleared from disease could not be put back into the private sector.
Under CITES protocols and Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 no one can profit from seized wildlife.
Thus these birds can not go to private aviculturalists as these people breed and trade their birds.
In a way this is a shame as, arguably, one of the best private breeders of exotic psittacines is the Priam Psittaculture centre at Bungendore. This facility houses and breeds Red-fronted Macaws - a CITES 1 species. The seized Red-fronteds on this list would be a very worthwhile source of new genetic material for Priam but, under the current DEWHA policy, they are denied access to them.
thanks for info steve this really is going to be a problem.
it worries me that birds that have been bred here that arnt registered can have this done to them, as they were not smuggled.
and have they found these birds yet if not they could be any were and if there is no trail on them, then arfter next years breeding u would probbalby find that diffrent breeders will put these down as having bred them.
which makes me think how many zoos will take them and wat, taronga took on some maccaws a few years ago i wonder wat they or any other zoo would take as these would be freebies.
look steve i know that the ARAZPA accreditation program is still in its infancy but to be honest i think its appropriate that the DEWHA would only offer confiscated animals to ARAZPA zoos to ensure that they are cared for and managed under an high standard of care. unfortunately you are not yet an ARAZPA member and unfortunately the accreditation program has a long, long way to go. but there is no point changing the policy to something inferior when the the zoo world will soon catch up.
if i was in government i wouldn't play ball on these issues with any non ARAZPA zoos.
you should understand this. you are in the process of applying for ARAZPA membership.
as for the birds. i'm not really that worried. to be honest i don't understand your concerns for believing that no ARAZPA zoo will be interested in homing them. since no zoo had any idea that suddenly all these animals would be confiscated and up for grabs - why would you expect their census and plan to reflect those intentions?
a given zoo might not have had any intention of purchasing macaws right now, but since they are available and free they are very likely to be opportunistically acquired.
i'm not trying to push your buttons mate. just i don't think this issue is worth the stress. and i think a policy of not giving CITES 1 or any other confiscated species to non-accredited zoos is good policy long term.
So you are saying that only the ARAZPA zoos that are accredited should be considered for the placement of these birds?
How many of these are there?
Sounds like another Tipperary type Government balls up in the making!
Just think Steve - If ARAZPA were serious about this, they might even push through some current applications to join...
Arhh.. to dream.
All states and territories have legislative and regulatory frameworks under which zoos are licensed to operate. All of them have animal welfare standards attached. ARAZPA is not a regulatory authority. It is a self-selective professional association. Steve's zoo is licensed to operate in one of the states with the most stringent zoo regulation of all.
DEWHA's policy implicitly suggests that the Department views state and territory zoo regulation as inadequate to ensure a high standard of professionalism and animal welfare. So much so, in fact, that the birds are better off dead than in a non-ARAZPA zoo. I'm happy for DEWHA's position, if that is the case, to be canvassed and scrutinised. I expect to be able, after all, to scrutinise all government department policy.
In the mean-time, I'm going to take as a prima facie assumption that a zoo that is accredited to operate in Queensland is suitably equipped to care for these birds.
I will be producing, in the next 24 hours (things are a bit hectic today) a petition supporting a) a moratorium on euthanising any of the birds and b) a change in DEWHA policy that would allow non-ARAZPA zoos including, though not necessarily limited to Darling Downs, any birds that are not housed in ARAZPA institutions. The numbers and any suitable (ie, coherent and non-abusive) comments will be forwarded daily to the Minister for the Environment's office and the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. I hope that Zoochatters will, on the whole, support this effort.
Put simply, these birds do not need to die. That is not a reasonable outcome on animal rights, animal welfare, conservation or anti-smuggling grounds. In terms of animal rights, the parrots did not choose this situation and are powerless to prevent it. In terms of animal welfare, it is surely apparent that an animal is better off alive than dead as long as they are housed and treated according to their needs. In terms of conservation, a number of these species are endangered and these birds may be able to contribute to self-sustaining captive populations in zoos. In terms of fighting animal smuggling, it is only bureaucratic bloody-mindedness that could identify mass slaughter of the victims of animal trafficking with an ethical attempt to combat that smuggling. CITES was set up to protect animals, not to provide the legal justification for killing them in their hundreds.
I reiterate that we need to get this situation right sooner rather than later as there will be a lot more birds to follow these.
But a dream is all it is I fear!
i hope your application gets passed through steve
we need a few more zoo managers with an intrest in birds as our zoos are lacking in bird variety. we may have limited exotic mamals but we have a huge range of exotic birds here that could make quit good and intresting displays, in our zoos.
Sorry guys but at the risk of sounding really stupid, the title of this thread says "illegal birds facing death - if they can be found."
I have probably missed something here but where are they? Isn't a bit early to be arguing over who gets what at this stage? Shouldn't they be "found" first?
( like i said, i have probably missed something in this thread about their location. I am prepared to be flamed.)
There is a chance that Dollar Bill has moved the birds off his property, the Gov left them but he wasnt allowed to move them.
I saw on the late end of the 10 Late news last night, a Land Tortoise that was supposed to be EU but the Aussie Reptile Park fought it and were allowed to keep it.
So a precedent has now been set.
boof - the birds had been seized in situ pending the ouitcome of the court case. The bloke lost the case and rumour has it that he has cleared out all the birds so that the Feds can't blow them away.
If this is right, we can assume that the Feds will find them one day and euthanase them. If this is wrong, the story is that the Feds may euthanase them as early as this week so that any negative publicity will be minimised in the Christmas euphoria.
In any event, the argument needs to be had now in a bid to convince DEWHA to broaden their policy for the placement of seized wildlife in an effort to avoid euthanasing genetically valuable, rare and endangered species. There are a lot more birds out there that the Department has seized in situ while waiting for their day in court. If the department wins, these birds will also be likelt to be slaughtered. At the moment the number is estimated to be in excess of one thousand CITES 1 and CITES 2 birds.
HIX - any thoughts???
pm if necessary.
Steve, like I said go international. TRAFFIC and IUCN Parrot SG.
The whole episode is in complete contravention of the CITES guidelines and those for confiscation of threatened species (IUCN).
PM is fine if need be!
you know how the cenus and plan works.
you know its not a binding agreement.
and you know that i, along with many others here scoff at the flip flopping that most zoos do over their collection plans.
the census and plan its nothing more than all the ARAZPA zoos flagging interest in what they intend on keeping and disposing of. species are listed as ridiculous as impala and sumatran rhinos.
so i am completely unconvinced you have any reason to believe that you are the only zoo who has any interest in these birds.
i'm sure melbourne had no plans to acquire slow loris - but when one was (literally) left on their doorstep. they took the opportunity to home it permanently.
i'm not saying they definitely will. i'm saying you don't have a reason to believe they definitely won't.
but for what its worth, goodluck. i sincerely hope they do not destroy any of these birds.
Are you saying that only accredited ARAZPA zoos should receive these birds?
How many such zoos are there?
Separate names with a comma.