Exotic Mammals in Australian Zoos

[Jambo]

Ah, rightio. This may be a dumb question, but why can we import Red Lechwe and not Nile Lechwe? Would it be easier to get added as they're similar species?

Again, probably a case of Red Lechwe being a priority focus sub species over the Nile Lechwe. If there ever was a desire to acquire Nile Lechwe, it would have more chance of being approved however I doubt this would change when we can already acquire Red Lechwe.

 

[Zoofan15]

Ah, rightio. This may be a dumb question, but why can we import Red Lechwe and not Nile Lechwe? Would it be easier to get added as they're similar species?

Again, probably a case of Red Lechwe being a priority focus sub species over the Nile Lechwe. If there ever was a desire to acquire Nile Lechwe, it would have more chance of being approved however I doubt this would change when we can already acquire Red Lechwe.

Red lechwe is Non Threatened; while Nile lechwe is Endangered, so that may have complicated their addition to the list. Adding them would require the same paperwork as adding any other Bovid, though disease/containment aspects would be comparable.

 

[Chlidonias]

With regards to the last lot of posts, in simple terms most species on the Live Import List are there (in part) due to historical reasons - they were already in the country when the list was originally created. It doesn't have anything to do with Red Lechwe being "prioritised" over Nile Lechwe or one being more endangered than the other (using the above examples), it is simply that Red Lechwe were already in Australia at the time and Nile Lechwe weren't. That is why there are so many species on the list which can't actually be imported currently; they are on the list simply because they used to be in the country.

Species which get added to the list are because a zoo or other body specifically wants to bring them into the country.

 

[That Aussie Guy]

With regards to the last lot of posts, in simple terms most species on the Live Import List are there (in part) due to historical reasons - they were already in the country when the list was originally created. It doesn't have anything to do with Red Lechwe being "prioritised" over Nile Lechwe or one being more endangered than the other (using the above examples), it is simply that Red Lechwe were already in Australia at the time and Nile Lechwe weren't. That is why there are so many species on the list which can't actually be imported currently; they are on the list simply because they used to be in the country.

Species which get added to the list are because a zoo or other body specifically wants to bring them into the country.

Are there any ungulate or other species that zoos have shown interest in possibly attempting to get added to the Import List, or not? I feel like if zoos instead only focus on animals already on the import list, and obtaining greater numbers of them all, the collections of zoos in the region are going to get really repetitive.

 

[Zoofan15]

I feel like if zoos instead only focus on animals already on the import list, and obtaining greater numbers of them all, the collections of zoos in the region are going to get really repetitive.

That’s the way zoos in the region are going though (homogenisation). Having a large regional population of a species (held across multiple holders) means it’s more sustainable long term.

Nyala are a recent example. Recent imports of a large number of founders; with the long term goal of having multiple holders. The population is large, sustainable and (for now) genetically healthy.

Regional planning was absent throughout most of the 20th century and species were vulnerable to disappearing e.g. a pair of something was imported by a zoo; never bred; and once they died, the zoo imported something else. Other species thrived, but due to the small number of founder stock, became inbred (our regional peccary population descends from a single pair).

 

[That Aussie Guy]

That’s the way zoos in the region are going though (homogenisation). Having a large regional population of a species (held across multiple holders) means it’s more sustainable long term.

Nyala are a recent example. Recent imports of a large number of founders; with the long term goal of having multiple holders. The population is large, sustainable and (for now) genetically healthy.

Regional planning was absent throughout most of the 20th century and species were vulnerable to disappearing e.g. a pair of something was imported by a zoo; never bred; and once they died, the zoo imported something else. Other species thrived, but due to the small number of founder stock, became inbred (our regional peccary population descends from a single pair).

Is it unrealistic then for us to assume that there will be very few, if any, new species imported within the next decade or two?

Such a shame however - there's so many species that I'd love to see housed in some of our zoos that would fit perfectly into some of the current collections and themes of different zoos.

 

[Jambo]

Is it unrealistic then for us to assume that there will be very few, if any, new species imported within the next decade or two?

@Zoofan15 is right on the money with the fact that there is now far more regional cooperation required to import a single species, therefore it is much more rare to see new species imported these days.

That's not to say there won't be, but it's going to be on the lesser side given the restrictions and planning involved nowadays.

 

[Zoofan15]

Is it unrealistic then for us to assume that there will be very few, if any, new species imported within the next decade or two?

Such a shame however - there's so many species that I'd love to see housed in some of our zoos that would fit perfectly into some of the current collections and themes of different zoos.

@Zoofan15 is right on the money with the fact that there is now far more regional cooperation required to import a single species, therefore it is much more rare to see new species imported these days.

That's not to say there won't be, but it's going to be on the lesser side given the restrictions and planning involved nowadays.

Regional plans are rarely made publicly available and there’s always surprises; but it’s my belief boosting numbers/genetic diversity of existing species will be given priority over adding new species to the live import list (at least with regards to ungulates).

With regards to mammal imports in general, there’s indications Clouded leopard will be a focus species going forward; and the Caracal and Sri Lankan populations are beginning to take off after a series of imports.

 

[That Aussie Guy]

@Zoofan15 is right on the money with the fact that there is now far more regional cooperation required to import a single species, therefore it is much more rare to see new species imported these days.

That's not to say there won't be, but it's going to be on the lesser side given the restrictions and planning involved nowadays.

Regional plans are rarely made publicly available and there’s always surprises; but it’s my belief boosting numbers/genetic diversity of existing species will be given priority over adding new species to the live import list.

With regards to mammal imports in general, there’s indications Clouded leopard will be a focus species going forward; and the Caracal and Sri Lankan populations are beginning to take off after a series of imports.

That makes sense.

You did mention that plans are rarely made public, but are there any plans that have been made public regarding potential future new species? Are there any species that will be phased out soon in favour for similar counterparts (E.g. I know Europe is mostly phasing out Collared Peccary in favour of Chacoan Peccary)?

 

[Zoofan15]

That makes sense.

You did mention that plans are rarely made public, but are there any plans that have been made public regarding potential future new species? Are there any species that will be phased out soon in favour for similar counterparts (E.g. I know Europe is mostly phasing out Collared Peccary in favour of Chacoan Peccary)?

Red ruffed lemur were recently added to the live import list, so they will hopefully be a new species for the region in the coming years. Bear in mind, importation is a complex process, often taking years.

Federal Register of Legislation - List of Specimens taken to be Suitable for Live Import Amendment (red ruffed lemur) Instrument 2022

Collared peccary are designated as phase out; while there’s multiple species that have performed poorly e.g. Fishing cat, Malayan tapir that could well follow suit (I’ll avoid speculating too much).

 

[ReturnOfPaddyRick]

Is it unrealistic then for us to assume that there will be very few, if any, new species imported within the next decade or two?

Such a shame however - there's so many species that I'd love to see housed in some of our zoos that would fit perfectly into some of the current collections and themes of different zoos.

We just had De Brazza’s imported recently, and Monarto have registered interest in some ungulates, namely Kudu, and potentially impala. We just have to wait and see. Maybe the larger zoos, following the phase out of elephants, will want to import something substantial as a replacement.

 

[FunnyJamie]

This is the latest version of the live import list (updated 06/02/2024):

https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006B01053/2024-02-06/2024-02-06/text/original/word

Silvery marmoset are on the live import list.

Bat-eared fox and Red-bellied tamarin were rejected for addition to the live import list in May 2021. A review of this action was launched, with the decision to uphold the refusal to import Red-bellied tamarin announced in December 2023.

Ah, I was not aware that they had decided to uphold the refusal, shame they have done so since there is already Tamarin in the Region and that Bat-Eared Fox have nowhere near as much invasive risk as Red Fox. Where abouts do they post their updates on things being denied

 

[FunnyJamie]

Ah, rightio. This may be a dumb question, but why can we import Red Lechwe and not Nile Lechwe? Would it be easier to get added as they're similar species?

What is on the import list is only things that People or Zoos apply to be added (though I haven't heard of a single person doing it, I think it would be interesting if someone did it for a species to try and prompt zoo interest). The Government as far as I am aware does not passively assess species. Which I think is a shame honestly, it would be nice if they did this and then Zoos would be given more options without having to work for a species to be added to the approved list. As for why we can get Red Lechwe and not Nile, it is probably because they were held in Australia during the 90s at least, I do not know if they made it to the 2000s.

 

[FunnyJamie]

Oh I responded to old messages, apologies, my zoochat was not showing a bunch of the messages for some reason

 

[PossumRoach]

https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006B01053/2024-02-06/2024-02-06/text/original/word

Silvery marmoset are on the live import list.

Bat-eared fox and Red-bellied tamarin were rejected for addition to the live import list in May 2021. A review of this action was launched, with the decision to uphold the refusal to import Red-bellied tamarin announced in December 2023.

So I understand that this might be confidential but what is the basis behind the decision to refuse the import of red-bellied tamarins even after allowing the import of another callitrichid species? Wouldn’t most of the arguments against RB tamarins be applicable to legal callitrichid species as well?

 

[That Aussie Guy]

Does anyone know if there are any other species/genera that are featured on the import list but currently not actually allowed to be imported (as mentioned previously with the pigs), or vice-versa?

 

[Zoofan15]

Does anyone know if there are any other species/genera that are featured on the import list but currently not actually allowed to be imported (as mentioned previously with the pigs), or vice-versa?

Giant anteater and Hoffman’s two-toed sloth are both on the live import list. We would need a Xenarthra IRA to import these (which we don’t have).

Puma is also on the live import list, but is subject to additional conditions such as any incoming individuals must be desexed.

 

[Osedax]

Puma is also on the live import list, but is subject to additional conditions such as any incoming individuals must be desexed.

So basically there is no point.

 

[Zoofan15]

So basically there is no point.

We can never establish a sustainable population of Puma which is a shame, but they can live for up to 20 years in captivity. When you weigh that against the approximately two years it’d take to import something from the US, it doesn’t seem so bad - especially considering how underrepresented North American species are in our zoos compared to the 20th Century (bears, wolves, puma etc).

New Zealand imports three year old Tasmanian devils from Australia on a regular basis (which are similarly non-reproductive). They’re easier to import (within the region), but only last an average of 2-3 years, so it’s all swings and roundabouts.

 

[That Aussie Guy]

Puma is also on the live import list, but is subject to additional conditions such as any incoming individuals must be desexed.

Would there be many zoos in Australia however that would want to import Puma knowing that in a decade or two they'd have to start over with the species?

Giant anteater and Hoffman’s two-toed sloth are both on the live import list. We would need a Xenarthra IRA to import these (which we don’t have).

Fair enough. What IRA do we have in place currently when it comes to families/genera? I have heard that the Bovid IRA recently got put in place, paving the way for more antelope species and such to (possibly) be re-imported into Australia.