Exotics in Australia

[Kevin G]

Hello everyone my name is Kevin and I am a conservation biology student from Sydney studying in New York. Having recently aquired the ability to visit the world class Bronx Zoo, I must say I am rather jealous of the myriad of exotic species present in the States compared to what is present back in oz.
I have read through many arguments explaining why this is, but to be honest cannot see any validity or logic to them.
One that is frequently stated is that the cattle industry has more sway with the gov then the zoo "industry". However economics is not the only important thing. Zoos have the ability to encourage citizens to motivate politicians to envoke change. For example, due to the economic crisis and budget constraints, the city and state governments of New York were going to reduce funding to the WCS run institutions. Due to public relations campaigns on the part of the WCS, funding was restored. Even if economics do not favor zoo funding, if the populace overwhelmingly votes in the favor of zoos, the government will give in. If the major zoos of oz all did what the WCS did in terms of media and public relations, but instead to encourage the softening of restrictions, then it is conceivable change could occur. And if the cattle industry is hellbent on interfering with zoos, then perhaps zoos should interfere with the cattle industry. Imagine a public ad campaign reaching millions of visitors informing them of the destruction caused to the environment by feral goats and horses which are ravishing the plethora of flora and fauna of our nation. It works both ways. If they want to portray exotics as potentially harmful, then it is our responsibility to inform the public of the devastation caused by agriculture.
Secondly, it is stated zoos in oz are so few in number that they could never be realisticly viable in longterm SSP's. This I believe is an argument of a rather linear mindset. If restrictions were relaxed and genetic material could be moved into the country, then only a few living specimens would be necessary. In the US there are many frozen "zoos". A single cannister could hold hundreds of a species. If zoos in oz could just use living specimens as hosts and use the frozen genetic material to infuse genetic diversity into the population, then in theory zoos in oz could hold just as many individuals as the zoos in the US. Why import a rhino, when you can import a cannister containing the genetic material of hundreds of rhinos? If the major zoos invested in creating frozen "zoos" we would not have the problem of inbreeding and hybridization that to be honest is dissolving the conservation benefit of our fine institutions.

 

[Hix]

Kevin,

In regards to your first point: public support of zoos will not sway the government away from the farming community's concerns. And, like most major decisions, it boils down to a monetary argument.

Importations of ungulates can potentially introduce exotic diseases. The Foot-and-Mouth outbreak in the UK some years ago cost the UK more than 2 billion pounds. I'm fairly certain some of the UK forumsters of this site can give you more details of what it was like to be in the UK at that time.

An outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth in Australia would have a serious impact upon the cattle industry (and sheep/goat/horse industries too). In 2008 Australia exported 960 kilotonnes of beef to the world, valued at $4.85 billion. No Australian politician would put that export market at risk.

Equine Influenza caused a massive disruption to the Horse Racing Industry in Australia less than 2 years ago. A Foot-and-Mouth outbreak would stop all movements of horses around the country, race meets would be cancelled, and all infected horses destroyed.

Public pressure from zoo supporters will not make politicians change their loyalties to the farmers. And to suggest "perhaps zoos should interfere with the cattle industry" is just irresponsible.



Hix

 

[CGSwans]

But Hix, surely it's just a matter of appropriate quarantine procedures to make sure that any animals don't have the disease (or any others of concern) before they enter the country? With FMD, there's an incubation period of what, a couple of weeks? Six weeks in high-biosecurity quarantine should be fine.

I mean... elephants can carry FMD too. That didn't stop the 2006 import.

I don't deny that quarantine is of critical importance. I just think that the blanket-ban approach is lazy, unnecessary and hypocritical.

 

[CGSwans]

Also as an aside, the following countries are a selection of those currently recognised as FMD-free by the World Organisation for Animal Health:
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Germany
Netherlands
Poland
Singapore
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

That's pretty much every zoo country that we'd be likely to try importing from in any case. The risk of okapi, anoa, impala, red river hog or any other ungulate Australian zoos sought to import from North America or Europe causing an FMD outbreak is incalculably small, and no justification for preventing Australian zoos from reaching their full potential.

 

[Hix]

But Hix, surely it's just a matter of appropriate quarantine procedures to make sure that any animals don't have the disease (or any others of concern) before they enter the country? With FMD, there's an incubation period of what, a couple of weeks? Six weeks in high-biosecurity quarantine should be fine.

I mean... elephants can carry FMD too. That didn't stop the 2006 import.

I don't deny that quarantine is of critical importance. I just think that the blanket-ban approach is lazy, unnecessary and hypocritical.

There is still alot that is not known about FMD, particularly in relation to carriers of the disease. The virus can survive for a few months outside the host, up to a year in cold weather. Humans can carry the disease in the nasal passages for a couple of days, and as ungulates can often become infected by aerosol spread (and there is evidence the disease spread from Jersey to the Isle of Wight by aerosol), high biosecurity quarantine facilities might not be sufficient.

Biosecurity Australia operates under the Precautionary Principle - in this case, if you can't guarantee the disease will not be introduced, we won't permit importation. Because there is much that is unknown or unresolved about the disease, that assurance cannot be made.

Almost 5 billion dollars per year is a very powerful incentive for politicians not to upset the status quo.



Hix

 

[Coquinguy]

and it would be very hard to convince a politician that a 5 billion dollar industry is worth jeapordising just for a herd of impalas or peccaries

 

[CGSwans]

Ok. I'm now looking at the Biosecurity Australia website. The problem doesn't appear to be a *permanent* blanket ban, but actually the fact that the Import Risk Assessments have been stalled for years.

The most recent information on the website for the following IRAs:
- Flamingoes - 23 December 1999
- Pigs and Peccaries - 10 April 2000
- Bovids - 23 January 2001
- Crowned Cranes - 26 November 2002
- Snakes - 18 March 2003
- Primates - 20 March 2003

I'm sorry - but why has there been no movement on these for almost a decade in some cases?

 

[snowleopard]

@Kevin G: you've brought up a topic that has often been debated here at ZooChat, and I love it when Aussies visit the United States and see the species that are available for viewing in the big American zoos. You can visit one major U.S. zoo and see more hoofstock species within a few hours than what is held on the entire continent of Australia! There are zoos like Cleveland and San Diego where there are 6 of the world's 8 bear species, while Australia has only sun bears and a handful of others spread across the country. The Cincinnati Zoo has something like 21 cat species, and the list goes on and on. There are fairly new elephant paddocks in Sydney and Melbourne (brand new at Taronga and an expanded enclosure in Melbourne) that are puny compared to the multi-acre pachyderm habitats popping up throughout North America, but at least Australia has more than a few elephants in the nation. The strict import laws within Australia have robbed the zoos there of most of their diversity, but don't forget that down under there is a long list of wonderful animals that are rarely ever found in international zoos. Australia still has managed to produce some excellent zoos, but with the lack of diversity within the animal collections there is no Aussie zoo that can compete with San Diego, Bronx, Chester, Berlin, etc. Warm weather combined with brilliant reptile, amphibian, marsupial and bird collections help offset the lack of mammals in the country. Also, even though primates are on the list of "Import Risk Assessments" Australian zoos have a large variety. Melbourne Zoo must have between 15-20 species of primate all by itself.

 

[Kevin G]

Hix you just stated humans can carry the disease into the country. Should foreign tourism stop because they could bring all sorts of diseases into the country? It seems hypocritical to allow unchecked millions who could of had interaction to potentially infected animals into our country, but ban animals who have essentially been in quarintine. Large zoos have enormous economic impact on the cities to which they serve. For example the WCS of New York had a $414.6 million dollar economic impact via expenditures on the city and state of New York. If locals had exotic animals to see, they would visit their local zoo more and thus spend more. How many times can we be expected to see a kangaroo, and oh look an emu. It would be akin to asking the yanks to pay $40 bucks to look at some squirrels or raccoons. Sure tourists come to see the indiginous fauna, but for zoos to really reach their full economic potential they need to play to the needs and wants of the local population. Many people here in New York visit the zoo multiple times in a year. Why? Because you saw things you couldnt see in your backyard. I am sorry but you cannot realistically approximate the feel of an african savanna with hybridized giraffe (something I am as opposed to as white tigers), some zebra, and perhaps one or two white rhino. I am not suggesting bringing in herds of animals. I am suggesting bringing in about a dozen of a species rigorously screened and quarintined, and then importing frozen genetic material from just as screened specimens to replenish genetic diversity. Let's be honest H1N1 has shown us that no amount of protective measures are ever strong enough to always prevent infection. The best thing that can be done is to mitigate risks and to carry on. To hurt one "industry" at the expense of another is just uneconomical. Who knows a bird could fly down from Indonesia and bring avian flu and destroy the poultry industry. Should we send our diggers up there to shoot them all down. I don't think so because it wouldn't guarentee anything.

 

[ZooPro]

I'm sorry - but why has there been no movement on these for almost a decade in some cases?

Because, despite constant and ongoing pressure from the zoo industry, Biosecurity Australia are not prepared to apply any additonal resources to having the zoo-related IRAs progressed. The key person at BA that worked on zoo IRAs has just retired, with no plans for re-assignment of existing staff.

And what are the BA people working on instead? Importation of chicken meat and bi-products, cattle semen etc. etc. All driven by the pressure and $ from the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, at this point in time, as Hix stated:

Public pressure from zoo supporters will not make politicians change their loyalties to the farmers. And to suggest "perhaps zoos should interfere with the cattle industry" is just irresponsible.

The equine flu outbreak a couple of years ago set things back for all livestock importations by a long way. The horse industry was also thought to be a high quarantine, risk-free, multi-million dollar industry, and yet as we all know, accidents (for want of a better term) occur now and then, and look at the repurcussions of that. The government is unfortunately, not prepared to budge "just for a herd of impalas or peccaries", as glyn points out.

I can assure you that it's not for want of trying from within the zoo industry.

And as for

You can visit one major U.S. zoo and see more hoofstock species within a few hours than what is held on the entire continent of Australia!

doesn't every one know that everting is bigger and better in the US! But in this case, it's quite true, and much the same for most of the larger European zoos. But then, you won't see anywhere near as many Australian natives in US or European zoos - platypus anyone? !

 

[snowleopard]

@ZooPro: I love the Aussie zoos that I've seen (about 17 zoos, wildlife parks and aquariums) and whenever I moan about their shocking lack of diversity I always point out that the reptile, amphibian, bird and marsupial collections are outstanding. However, those that don't see zoos in Europe or North America are definitely missing out on hundreds of species that are not found down under.

 

[CGSwans]

Which ones have you been to, snowleopard?

A quick look through the gallery shows:
Adelaide
Alice Springs
Cleland
Healesville
Kuranda
Melbourne Aquarium
Melbourne Zoo
Monarto
Phillip Island
Sydney Aquarium
Sydney Wildlife World
Taronga

What are the other five?

 

[Ara]

I'm sure that 95% of the Australian zoo-going public do not particularly care that there are so few ungulate species in Australia (unlike me!) Ungulates are regarded as the "support" species to the "stars" such as big cats, apes and elephants. Antelopes to most people are just "deer".

I remember how thrilled I was a few decades back when Scimitar-Horned Oryx arrived unannounced at Taronga. While I stood drinking them in, so to speak, a tired looking mother with kids arrived at the enclosure fence. She took one look -"just goats" she said in a disappointed voice and walked away!

 

[Kevin G]

The problem is that these "support species" are disappearing through the lack of genetic diversity. What will be left are rhinos, ostriches, zebra, and perhaps inbred giraffes. Although the public has a hard time of distinguishing species apart, they do at least know antelope are an important aspect of an african savanna. Besides this, as a conservation student I see the climate of Australia as ideal for ungulate breeding programs and see these vast open range zoos just as a waste of potential. Australian zoos should be able to fully participate in SSP's just as their North American and European counterparts.

 

[CGSwans]

I'm sure that 95% of the Australian zoo-going public do not particularly care that there are so few ungulate species in Australia (unlike me!) Ungulates are regarded as the "support" species to the "stars" such as big cats, apes and elephants. Antelopes to most people are just "deer".

I remember how thrilled I was a few decades back when Scimitar-Horned Oryx arrived unannounced at Taronga. While I stood drinking them in, so to speak, a tired looking mother with kids arrived at the enclosure fence. She took one look -"just goats" she said in a disappointed voice and walked away!

Antelope are of more importance to the open range zoos, I would have thought. You're perfectly correct in saying that they are 'support' species. But people want to see diversity as well as the 'stars'.

It's not like we need to have the literally dozens of species present in the US or Europe. But we currently have, what, four, maybe six bovids with sustainable numbers in Australia? Bison, oryx, blackbuck, eland, addax and barbary sheep are the only ones present in any significant fashion.

An importation program doesn't have to be huge to make a big difference to our zoos. Bring in more collared peccary, Rothschild's giraffe, bongo, waterbuck, addax, kudu, river and pygmy hippos to bring those groups up to manageable numbers. Then import founder populations of impala, gerenuk, okapi, anoa, red river hog and babirusa and you've got a viable collection of around 20-25 artiodactyl species . That's plenty for the Australian zoo system. We would have a range of species that are diverse across families, continents and ecological niches. It's not that many animals - maybe 100-150 over 10 years. The zoo industry should simply be going to Biosecurity Austraila with the simple question: "what do we have to do to make this work for you?" Whether it's setting up an off-shore quarantine facility in a country untouched by BSE or FMD... or whatever.

The same approach should be followed for birds.

 

[Kevin G]

Exactly, why is the zoo "industry" not putting on a more united front on this matter. If biosecurity doesn't want to fund or hire replacement staff to deal with zoo related IRAs, why doesn't Australian zoos unite and present the offer to personally finance new officials. Note: not be involved with the actual hiring of officials, because that could lead to corruption and lapses in policy. But rather give Biosecurity a fee of sorts so they will have motivation and no excuse to process requests.

 

[jay]

My two cents worth.
In the economic scheme of things in Australia, zoos are unimportant. I know I am cynical but I think for the majority of Aussies, those in control especially, that is the most important thing.
Secondly I wouldn't be suprised if, after the elephant importation rucus, that the zoo management are a bit reluctant to press too hard.

 

[PAT]

It's not like we need to have the literally dozens of species present in the US or Europe. But we currently have, what, four, maybe six bovids with sustainable numbers in Australia? Bison, oryx, blackbuck, eland, addax and barbary sheep are the only ones present in any significant fashion.

QUOTE]

We also have wild herds of banteng in the Northern Territory but it is a wasted oppurtunity just leaving them there. Any zoos that do have them would be able to pass them off as exetremely indangered in their native habitat and they quite unique looking.

 

[CGSwans]

My two cents worth.
In the economic scheme of things in Australia, zoos are unimportant. I know I am cynical but I think for the majority of Aussies, those in control especially, that is the most important thing.
Secondly I wouldn't be suprised if, after the elephant importation rucus, that the zoo management are a bit reluctant to press too hard.

Economically unimportant but hugely import culturally. Take a look at what's been happening in Massachussetts these past few days to show the political power that zoos can exercise. Now, this isn't the same case. But I can tell you right now that if the four state zoo societies banded together to pay for the zoo animal IRAs to be completed the Minister would love the idea. It's pragmatic, low-cost, results-oriented governance. Everything that a centrist Labor politician like Tony Burke wants to hear. Especially if there's a photo-op with an endangered animal in it for him too (no pigs, cows, sheep or goats though, please ).

 

[Hix]

Tony Burke might like the idea, Senator Bill Heffernan would NOT be impressed!

Hix you just stated humans can carry the disease into the country. Should foreign tourism stop because they could bring all sorts of diseases into the country? It seems hypocritical to allow unchecked millions who could of had interaction to potentially infected animals into our country, but ban animals who have essentially been in quarintine.

I probably should have made my comment more clear:
Zoo Animal carrying FMD virus (but not showing signs of it) being looked after by a keeper while the animal is in Quarantine at Taronga Zoo. Keeper leaves with virus in his nasal passages. Keeper sheds virus some hours later at the Giraffe exhibit and Giraffes contract virus, which is passed to some country visitors when they feed the Giraffes. The next day they return home to Mittagong and give it to their sheep.

The virus can only survive in the human nasal passages for 24 - 48 hours. For people travelling to Australia from Europe or the States - well, most don't travel directly from the zoo to the airport.

Who knows a bird could fly down from Indonesia and bring avian flu and destroy the poultry industry.

There is always that risk. But it hasn't happened in the last 200 years. The general feeling is that if a bird has Bird Flu', or Newcastle's, or Infectious Bursal Disease, then they will be too sick to make the crossing.



HIx