Lots of thoughts Steve. Then again, there are LOTS of thoughts in this thread and not enough verifiable facts. I've been watching tbis thread with interest since it started, because I hadn't heard anything about it. And the news story mentioned in the first post is the ONLY reference I can find on the internet about this situation. I'm not particularly keen on entering a debate I know little or nothing about and clouding the issue with my views which maybe based on misinformation. No offence to anyone who has posted but I don't know the validity of any of the posts in this thread (i.e. whether they know the details of the case first-hand because they are involved, or whether they heard them second-, third-, or fourth-hand, in which case the info maybe biased or missing important details). Having said that, here's what I currently think. Assuming the birds were smuggled into the country illegally, then: If the birds were seized two years ago and remained in situ, then I believe any quarantine risks would be negligible at this point in time. If the birds and their progeny have been distributed to breeders around the country, then any disease has already been spread around. Euthanasing the source birds will do nothing to protect the environment (unless it is something really bad, but then we would have heard of outbreaks by now). According to a DEWHA discussion paper on the disposal of seized/forfeited wildlife that were confiscated under the EPBC Act, which is based on the CITES Conference of Parties Resolution 10.7 (itself based on the IUCN Guidelines for placement of seized animals), the three options available are a) placement in a captive facility b) return to the wild c) euthanasia If the birds are endangered or threatened in the wild (and all parrots are listed on CITES) then euthanasia would definitely be the last choice unless there were disease or pest issues. I don't believe this to be the case with these birds. However, if DEWHA seizes any peachfaced lovebirds or ringneck parrots at the border then immediate euthanasia would be the appropriate action. The discussion paper lists zoos as ideal for placement of animals, as does CITES. DEWHA recmmends full institutional ARAZPA members, with liaison through the TAG convenor. They don't specify why they chose ARAZPA, but I suspect it is because DEWHA is concerned with protecting Australia's wildlife and wild places, not in dealing with the zoo world, so they use the professional industry association. The discussion paper further states that if full institutional members cannot take the confiscated animals, then Associate Members of ARAZPA may be offered the animals by the TAG convenor in consultation with DEWHA. Thia would suggest some flexibility in the guidelines, and I imagine threatened species would be an incentive to get animals placed in a facility, maybe even one that has lodged an application for ARAZPA membership - despite what people think, euthanasia is not always their first choice. This discussion paper would be the one mentioned in the last paragraph of the news piece. Until I learn more, there's not much more I can say. Hix
There was a number of e-mails sent out from DEWHA about them to people who have subscribed to the EBAG discussions.
Yup, I'll second that. That was an impressive list of birds! Given that one of the first posts mentioned that Adelaide was interested in 2 hyacinth macaws, and they actually have 2 hyacinth macaws right now that were seized off a breeder, I suspect that we at least know the fate of 2 birds.....
Apologies. I did not know that. Thanks for clearing that up though. So, the mystery is still unsolved.
yes the hyacinths at Adelaide have been there for at least ten years and were seized off a breeder, but there is a whole other story that goes witht he workings of that seizure.
