Coatis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jet
  • Start date Start date
jay said:
The whole coati business makes me wonderif the zoos are rethinking their options re South American species.
Click to expand...

The list of species considered suitable for import makes a very interesting South American collection perfectly plausible. In addition to the relatively diverse number of monkeys, puma, maned wolf, Brazilian tapir and camelids that are already present, zoos are already able to import Hoffmann's two-toed sloth, giant anteater, nine-banded armadillo, jaguar, ocelot, mara and capybara.

Amongst the birds there's a range of parrots as well as rhea, but I'd love to see a couple of zoos combining to try to get a group of toucan here, as well as flamingoes (Chilean or one of the African species - I'm not too fussy).

There's also a range of reptiles and amphibians - highlights would be dart frogs (I know there's a small number here already), Galapagos tortoise and a couple of different pit vipers and iguanas.
 
Good luck to all that!

To see a half-way decent collection of exotic animals these days we have to travel overseas.

The golden days of Australian zoos have long gone, as far as I'm concerned.:(
 
Ara said:
Good luck to all that!

To see a half-way decent collection of exotic animals these days we have to travel overseas.

The golden days of Australian zoos have long gone, as far as I'm concerned.:(
Click to expand...

I've read the list of "specimens suitable for import". The restrictions on decent collections in Australia aren't legislative. So what is the problem? Is it the "regional planning" that is encouraging all of our zoos to have homogenous, relatively small collections?
 
it's kind of irrelevant whether a species escapes from or is deliberately released from a zoo, they are still zoo animals establishing wild populations. But yes in overall terms it is very rare for escaped zoo animals to form wild populations anywhere (though there are many examples that could be cited, from porcupines in England to rock wallabies in Hawaii) -- the main reason of course being that zoo animals don't usually escape in large enough numbers to permit a population to establish, unlike deliberate releases (in Australia, for example, cane toads, rabbits or foxes). The chances of coatis escaping and establishing in the wild has to be considered remote in the extreme. But the authorities obviously still have to take it into consideration given the number of pests already established in the country.

As for the palm squirrels, they were deliberately released in the grounds of Perth Zoo in 1898. Although they mainly stayed within zoo boundaries they have been recorded up to 5km away in surrounding suburbs. In 1967 they were being regularly recorded from the residential districts of south Perth and Como. The Sydney palm squirrels were not releases, they descended from escaped animals from Taronga in about 1942 (and have since died out).
 
Little off topic but driving home a while ago I noticed something on the road. I wasn't sure what it was, maybe a rat or something. then it sat up. definately looked like some kind of squirrell. definately not a possum, the way it ran and moved was not what I was expecting. I didn't mention anything and a few days later a mate told me he had seen what he believed to be a squirrel on the road near his house (just around the corner from where I had seen it) I had not said anything to him. Coincidence??? the nearest zoo is probably Taronga over 300kms away. quite strange. . . anyway. . . .
 
Theres plenty of Palm Squirrels around both legal and illegal. so it may have been
 
.........which brings us back to the issue of the likelihood of escaped zoo animals going feral.

It would be a vastly different situation if exotic mammals were available to the public to keep as pets - then there would be a very real threat of feral establishment. But surely zoos should not be regarded by the government as irresponsible organisations.
 
tetrapod said:
As to the discussion about importing one versus two species of coati, I would imagine that the scenario is that ARAZPA are keeping their options open.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think the live import list has only been around as long as this piece of legislation - ie before 1999 the rules were different. In order to get an animal on to the live import list now, a zoo usually has to write the environment assessment report themselves for each species/sub-species (or even each variety in the example of the exclusion of savannah cats from other cats). Therefore, may as well get all relevant species done in the one report, especially if the potential risks are the same. Also as discussed previously here, even if you succesfully get an animal on the live import list, you also have to meet the federal quarantine and state regulations (probably best to deal with the quarantine restrictions first which with animals like coatis would probably just limit the countries from which they can be imported from).
 
tetrapod said:
But what does this mean??? The whole point of zoos going through the numerous loopholes of importing is to assess the likelihood of the overall effect of a particular species on the landscape.
Click to expand...

What do I mean?

A statement had been made that all feral/introduced pests in Australia were deliberate releases, and the question asked whether there were any that were the result of accidental escapes from zoos. I've heard similar arguments on another forum (regarding exotic reptiles), and the implication is that because it hasn't happened, why are there all the restrictions? That's what I meant by my statement. I agree with the rigorous assessment that needs to be conducted.

And yes, I do believe coatis could be a potential threat.

:)

Hix
 
Jet said:
In order to get an animal on to the live import list now, a zoo usually has to write the environment assessment report themselves for each species/sub-species (or even each variety in the example of the exclusion of savannah cats from other cats). Therefore, may as well get all relevant species done in the one report, especially if the potential risks are the same.
Click to expand...
are you sure the zoo writes the risk assessment themselves? That would seem to be inviting some dishonesty (not that I'm suggesting any major zoo would lie about potential risks, but it could certainly be considered a possibility). In NZ an application to import a new species is made to to the relevant government authority (which here would be ERMA, I believe) and a payment is made for a environmental risk assessment to be done. The zoo doesn't write the risk assessment themselves.
 
In Queensland, the facility applying to keep a species not currently permitted in this State, and there are scores of them, has to write rhe Risk Assessment itself.

It is then considered by a panel of experts. Their "consideration" is very thorough and can take years and years for potentially dangerous species such as Leopard Tortoises!!:mad:
 
Well jeez Steve, I'd hate to have a Leopard Tortoise go for my throat!:p
Maybe the "leopard" part of the name scares the authorities. Better come up with a gentler common name for it.

Seriously, you obviously have the patience of a saint just to deal with those nit-picking public servants. (I wouldn't feed most of them.)
 
Chlidonias said:
are you sure the zoo writes the risk assessment themselves?
Click to expand...

No they don't. The zoo answers questions on a template that provides the terms of reference for the assessment on the potential impacts. The actual assessment is then conducted by DEWR (the former Environment Australia) - and they are very thorough.

But getting the species onto the list of species permitted for import is just the first step. Then you need to get an Import Permit from AQIS (and they will ask Biosecurity Australia to conduct their own risk assessment of the quarantine issues), and the permit may have restrictions and conditions upon it. Populations of Nasua narica and N.nasua are on CITES, and although CITES Import and Export permits may not to be required in this case, they may be necessary in other instances with other animal species (or if CITES amends the Appendices and upgrades Coatis to a higher level).

:)

Hix
 
But the DEWHA (used to be DEWR) website says:

"A draft environment assessment report has been prepared by Zoos Victoria under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to amend the live import list to include the Brown-nosed or South American Coati (Nasua nasua) and White-nosed Coati (N. narica) for exhibition and education purposes."

I thought that only in rare instances does DEWHA prepare the report (eg. Savannah Cats as they were trying to bring them in as pets rather than being brought in by a reputable zoo organisation for education purposes).

Either way once the report is prepared DEWHA would have to consider any public comments and then recommend a decision to the Minister.
 
Any updates on this application? Approximately how long do we have to wait before we find out if the proposed list amendment has been approved?

:)
 
Judging by past amendments to the live import list, it's not a quick process. However, I'm guessing it won't be holding up the plans to import too much as there will be a range of other matters that have to fall into place first (i.e quarantine approval and requirements; preparation of suitable enclosures; veterinary matters; agreement of transport and holding conditions for import with exporting countries/exporters etc). Assuming all the approvals are met I reckon it will be another 18 months before the animals are here? What do others think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top