Exotics in Australia

Hix said:
Tony Burke might like the idea, Senator Bill Heffernan would NOT be impressed!
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but as I can attest from personal experience, Bill's a bit of a nutter. ;)

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.

HIx
Click to expand...

But the problem with that scenario is that it's not a proper quarantine regimen. There's no way that the same people should be working with quarantined animals and *any* other animals.

The accepted level of protection for Australia is "very low, but not zero" risk of exposure. That implies a strict, conservative but realistic level of biosecurity. An animal that spends six weeks in quarantine in an exporting country and then another six weeks in quarantine in Australia is not a significant biosecurity risk.
 
Zoos in Oz are economically unimportant because these zoos choose to be. As seen here in the states, zoos are forming relationships with universities (something I am seeing with Australia Zoo and the University of Queensland). Scientists, artists and cultural ambassadors are often funded. Zoos here in the US, especially New York City make themselves so engrained in life and culture in their respective cities and regions that they wield quite amount of power. The problem is Australian zoos are not working together to cohesively put together import proposals that the government cannot refuse. Offer to pay for the officials, the quarintine facilities, and all related costs while at the same time putting out a public relations campaign encouraging Aussies to support the action, and watch how the government will give in. The government is not going to shell out unnecessary money to fund the acquisition of exotic animals if they do not feel any pressure to do so. But if money is not coming out of their wallet and they have something to gain for free such as a seat at international captive breeding programs, they just may be persuaded to accept the request.
 
Look we shut down our illegal immigrant detention center on Nauru. How about requesting the set up of a quarintine center on the island. The people of Nauru would once again get funding, the Australian government would at least get something out of our constant funding of the island, and Australian zoos more exotic animals from the US and Canada. If Australian zoos funded the construction, the Australian gov could take the credit for the development and the hiring of locals to run it. This would be a win-win for the government. Free international aid and the enrichment of Australian zoos.
 
From a comment left earlier on by PAT,
Exactly, if we need deer there are large poulations of banteng, fallow deer, asiatic buffalo, red deer, hog deer, axis deer, rusa deer and sambar deer. Also there are white-tailed deer and sika deer in New Zealand.
 
Let's keep things in perspective here, people; although the land area of Australia is not much different to the United States, the population of the whole of Australia is about the same as the population of Pennsylvania. Australia has just 4 mainstream city zoos, 3 open-range zoos and a handful of smaller zoos. Some of the proposals being put forward on this thread would cost a massive amount of money.

With regard to the U.S., they too have large rural industries and a well educated and politically astute farming community. Are quarantine restrictions in the U.S. comparable to Australia's?
 
Actually Australia's population is actually greater then that of New York. And as I have mentioned in a previous posting, the future of captive breeding programs and zoo husbandry in general is going to be connected to stockpiles of frozen genetic material, i.e Frozen "Zoos". All of the zoos in the US do not have enough genetic diversity within the poulations of most of their species, and so outside sources either from the wild or zoos from abroad are needed to replenish captive populations. As I said earlier, a single cannister could hold hundreds of a particular species. If Australian zoos were allowed to import just several more species and were allowed to bring in screened genetic material, then it is conceivable that the four major city zoos and the three open range zoos could, in partnership with one another, maintain frozen "zoos" with genetic diversity on par with that of the entire US. For too long, zoos have simply maintained "living" collections and required the constant import of living animals to keep a population viable. This is no longer necessary. Living animals should be viewed as merely hosts, keeping a population alive in a region. Fertilization from the frozen zoos would replenish diversity. And besides its much cheaper to maintain countless specimens in liquid nitrogen then it is gigantic herds. The problem is that Australian zoos view themselves as minor players in the international community. This does not need to be the case. Of the zoos in the US, it is generally only a few that are doing the most work, such as the WCS, San Diego, Omaha's Henry Doorly, Brookfield, Cincinnati, and a few others. Taronga could be just as important as the WCS if it let itself be. Melbourne just as vital as Brookfield.
 
Ara said:
Let's keep things in perspective here, people; although the land area of Australia is not much different to the United States, the population of the whole of Australia is about the same as the population of Pennsylvania. Australia has just 4 mainstream city zoos, 3 open-range zoos and a handful of smaller zoos. Some of the proposals being put forward on this thread would cost a massive amount of money.

With regard to the U.S., they too have large rural industries and a well educated and politically astute farming community. Are quarantine restrictions in the U.S. comparable to Australia's?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that 20 or so managed artiodactyl species (there's no need, as has been implied in this thread, to manage deer, banteng, water buffalo, dromedaries or llamas) is too many for the Australian zoos to handle?

Ungulates are cheap to feed, cheap to house and mostly suited to living in groups. They're easy to keep and with three open range zoos there's absolutely no shortage of paddock space.

The cost involved would be in embarking upon a managed importation program. But that's really core business for zoos and if Australia's zoo societies have any hope of living up to the standards they wish to reach (for NSW and Victoria at least, that is being world-class zoological institutions) they really have to allocate the funds. If Taronga can afford to spend $50million on GSO, then I really wonder how they could consider $1-2million a year on quarantine and live freight to be prohibitive.
 
Kevin G said:
Actually Australia's population is actually greater then that of New York. And as I have mentioned in a previous posting, the future of captive breeding programs and zoo husbandry in general is going to be connected to stockpiles of frozen genetic material, i.e Frozen "Zoos". All of the zoos in the US do not have enough genetic diversity within the poulations of most of their species, and so outside sources either from the wild or zoos from abroad are needed to replenish captive populations. As I said earlier, a single cannister could hold hundreds of a particular species. If Australian zoos were allowed to import just several more species and were allowed to bring in screened genetic material, then it is conceivable that the four major city zoos and the three open range zoos could, in partnership with one another, maintain frozen "zoos" with genetic diversity on par with that of the entire US. For too long, zoos have simply maintained "living" collections and required the constant import of living animals to keep a population viable. This is no longer necessary. Living animals should be viewed as merely hosts, keeping a population alive in a region. Fertilization from the frozen zoos would replenish diversity. And besides its much cheaper to maintain countless specimens in liquid nitrogen then it is gigantic herds. The problem is that Australian zoos view themselves as minor players in the international community. This does not need to be the case. Of the zoos in the US, it is generally only a few that are doing the most work, such as the WCS, San Diego, Omaha's Henry Doorly, Brookfield, Cincinnati, and a few others. Taronga could be just as important as the WCS if it let itself be. Melbourne just as vital as Brookfield.
Click to expand...

I don't know how realistic or even desirable keeping animals in test tubes is, to be honest Kevin. AI is still hit and miss - and it's not even necessary in Australia. I mean - Monarto has something like 1400 hectares? They could easily provide space (though not financial resources, I'm not silly) for a managed herd of every artiodactyl species on the planet.
 
Fortunately the technology is improving. So few zoos are actually working with frozen zoos, off of the top of my mind in the US; San Diego's CRES program, Cincinnati, and the Audubon, that the technology is not moving ahead as fast as it could. If the major zoos of Australia were to become involved, then the potential would be there for the realization of better results. Is this the only thing I am suggesting? No. If the major zoos each maintained a small herd of a species, the chances of successful AI when used on all of them greatly improves. I am suggesting AI be used to make it more affordable for Australian zoos to be engaged in international breeding programs without the rediculous expenses of say importing a live rhino.
 
Despite the fact, I have only visited Australian zoos once (East Coast, to be exactly), I must say: @Kevin G. and @CGSwans are absolutely right with their arguments. And some import (but also export) restrictions and regulations for animals of the Australian gouverment (or BA) are as stupid as it gets.

The World today is a global world. That means also, that is nearly impossible to prevent a country from disease (look at the pig influence).

Also remember: We are talking about species for Zoos, not for private holders or to release them in Australias nature. So import exceptions for the first must - after a secure period of quarantine - be possible. I think (or presume) that some Australians don't want to make restrictions easier because they have still fears of their (mostly self made) mistakes in the past with some exotic species (e.g. canine toad). As far as I know, none of the "problem exotics" are intruduced to Australia for "Zoo reasons". They brought in for economic reasons.

As I visited Dubbo, Taronga, Sea World Surfers Paradise, Brisbane Zoo and so on, I was impressed about the native species. But I was also extremly disappointed about the few exotics. As already said in this forum, Australia has so many advantages keeping animals in Zoos like a lot of space and a subtropical to tropical clima that allows keeping tropical animals outside year round. What a waste of chances, not to use those advantages!

I'm also agree, that more exotics in Zoos would raise the interests of australias (metropolitan)citizens to visit their zoos. Why should pay an entrance fee of more than 40 Australian Dollars, when you can see - as mentioned - most of the animals in your backyard or dead along the road. And not all of the ungulates are boring for "ordinary visitors - think at the red river hogs for example.

That brings me to the last point: Export regulations. During my vacation in Oz, I saw more different Australian species (mostly of them dead) along the roads then in a European Zoo. The Australian Gouverment doesn't care about the thousands of wombats killed by drivers, but make huge restrictions for exporting them to Europe or North America. If this is not stupid, what else?

I can only hope, that the BA restrictions will change sooner than later...
 
zoomaniac said:
Despite the fact, I have only visited Australian zoos once (East Coast, to be exactly), I must say: @Kevin G. and @CGSwans are absolutely right with their arguments. And some import (but also export) restrictions and regulations for animals of the Australian gouverment (or BA) are as stupid as it gets.

The World today is a global world. That means also, that is nearly impossible to prevent a country from disease (look at the pig influence).

Also remember: We are talking about species for Zoos, not for private holders or to release them in Australias nature. So import exceptions for the first must - after a secure period of quarantine - be possible. I think (or presume) that some Australians don't want to make restrictions easier because they have still fears of their (mostly self made) mistakes in the past with some exotic species (e.g. canine toad). As far as I know, none of the "problem exotics" are intruduced to Australia for "Zoo reasons". They brought in for economic reasons.

As I visited Dubbo, Taronga, Sea World Surfers Paradise, Brisbane Zoo and so on, I was impressed about the native species. But I was also extremly disappointed about the few exotics. As already said in this forum, Australia has so many advantages keeping animals in Zoos like a lot of space and a subtropical to tropical clima that allows keeping tropical animals outside year round. What a waste of chances, not to use those advantages!

I'm also agree, that more exotics in Zoos would raise the interests of australias (metropolitan)citizens to visit their zoos. Why should pay an entrance fee of more than 40 Australian Dollars, when you can see - as mentioned - most of the animals in your backyard or dead along the road. And not all of the ungulates are boring for "ordinary visitors - think at the red river hogs for example.

That brings me to the last point: Export regulations. During my vacation in Oz, I saw more different Australian species (mostly of them dead) along the roads then in a European Zoo. The Australian Gouverment doesn't care about the thousands of wombats killed by drivers, but make huge restrictions for exporting them to Europe or North America. If this is not stupid, what else?

I can only hope, that the BA restrictions will change sooner than later...
Click to expand...

Are you aware of just how fragile the Australian Ecosystem is? Being an isalnd continent has made it harder for our animals to evolve, there has been no reason for them to, they have been perfectly suited to our environment. Animals like cats, dogs and foxes have decimated populations of thousands of animals in Australia, It is not only a quarantine issue, they also have to take into account the potential for wild herds to establish if there is an escape. Camels and especially water buffalo have destroyed northern Australia.

Do you know where the world's largest wild population of camels is? Northern Territory. Because we are perfectly suited to them, but our animals are NOT suited to living alongside them (or under them).

Although not sure what caused it, but still a very good example of the fragility of Australia's wildlife is the Tasmanian Devil. We now have no choice this animal WILL not maybe, not possibly, EVery single wild Tasmanian Devil in Australia WILL DIE. due to DFT we have no choice but to let it wipe out our wild population to eliminate the disease. leaving us with the disease free devils in our captive breeding programs. But this limits genetic diversity and if something else comes in then all of these devils will die, leaving us with nothing.

Our laws are the way they are with very good reason. If you disagree please explain. I do believe we should be permitted to import more animals into the country for our zoos but after appropriate risk assesments are completed. The problem is not that our laws are too strict it is that the government is too slow.

Earlier it was mentioned that zoos need to present a more united front. They do, It's called ARAZPA and I'm sure they are just as frustrated, if not more so than us by these delays. They have a massive amount of work to complete and they can only do so much.

PHEW! my two cents worth anyway
 
Jarkari said:
Are you aware of just how fragile the Australian Ecosystem is? Being an isalnd continent has made it harder for our animals to evolve, there has been no reason for them to, they have been perfectly suited to our environment. Animals like cats, dogs and foxes have decimated populations of thousands of animals in Australia, It is not only a quarantine issue, they also have to take into account the potential for wild herds to establish if there is an escape. Camels and especially water buffalo have destroyed northern Australia.
Click to expand...

I agree, and have more sympathies for this argument than biosecurity. At the same time - in nearly 150 years of zoo history in Australia there's still never been an exotic species take hold in this country that was not deliberately released. Zoos are trustworthy public (and private in some cases) institutions. I think if any zoo proposed to keep, say, free-range prairie dogs they would receive the opprobrium and official scrutiny they'd deserve. But, let's put it this way - an Australian zoo has already made that mistake and I don't expect it to happen twice.
 
I do understand that zoos are for the most part very very responsible with their animals, they have to be, I'm just stating an example of one of the many things that have to be taken into account before they can say yes, go ahead bring them in. I'm sure Steve could shed some light on how strict laws are and how much they differ even between the states.
 
@Jarkari

I'm not an expert in the point of introduced species. But I know the history of those problem animals you have mentioned.

And I already said: Not Australian Zoos are responsible for the environmental problems those exotics made and make. They have been intruduced for economic reason. House Cats and Dogs as Pets, Foxes for hunting for the high society, dromedarys to explore the inner of the continent a.s.o.

By the way (and as examples show): Carnivores (and also Primates), which can be - as far as I know - a LITTLE easier be importet than exotic ungulates or birds, can also be a danger for the fragile ecosystem in Australia.... There are examples like african guegnon who have conquestet Barbados or Mangooses in Hawaii!

You are talking about the Tasmanian devil:
First: I don't have present, from where this cancer like virus comes from. Is it really introduced?
Second: Thats what I say with my thoughts about export regulations. The (disease free) devils can maybe only survive as a species, when they will brought in captivity. But what happen, when this disease will be spread not only over Tasmania but also the complete continent Australia (and surrounding Islands)? The solution can only be trying to built two captivity-populations. One in Australia and one (or more) overseas.

Once again to verify and clarify: What I think is stupid are not import or export restrictions in general, but the fact that zoos don't get (nor not easy enough) exceptions to bring in new species and/or new bloodlines - under control of course. That means below other points safe exhibits and the prohibition to give away animals to non scientific-running institutions.

I hope there is no more confusion about what I mean. It is not easy for me to expresse myself in English because my own language in German. But I will try it again, if necessairy....:)
 
The devil Facil Tumour (I'm not suggesting it is introduced this is just an example of why we are so careful about what we let in) was only used as an example of the fragility of our wildlife. It is a contageous (sp?) spread by devils that have the cancer that bite eachother. biting occurs when eating and mating. so now we must wait until the wild population is totally gone before any captive bred devils can be released in Tasmania. Unfortuantely it looks like our wild devils will be extinct in the next 5 - 15 years.

I don't think people are getting my point. So it is this.
Before Bisecurity allows an animal to have permission for an import permit a risk assessment MUST be completed.
There are criteria that MUST be addressed. Adressing each of these criteria takes time.
They can't just say the chances of this escaping are minimal spo let's not worry about that part. They MUST have some idea of what to expect if this does occur. How well the population will establish.
Chances are that most animals will be approved BUT each species still needs a risk assesment completed.
You mention big cats and primates. Biosecurity has determined that these animals pose a minimal risk to the environment and various other industries. Also the Federal Government has it's own standards for keeping these animals and the security for carnivores is usually much higher.

Australia can't afford to have a disease outbreak that will have any kind of impact on our wildlife or any of the primary industries, it would devastate our economy.

You mention that Camels and various others were not bought in by zoos. That is not the point. These risk assesments don't only affect zoos but private individuals as well.

Risk assesments would have already been carried out for horses, cattle sheep etc. They probably have a massive team focussed on assesing these animals. These are high earners for Australia, therefore they are rushed through. Zoos don't bring in as much money as the primary industries therefore they take a backseat. It's not fair and as I said ARAZPA would be doing all they could, but they are limited in what they can achieve. It's just the way it is.

The main thing I want to get accross is that THESE LAWS ARE NOT TOO STRICT AND ARE REASONABLE!

The way the risk assesments are handled could be done better but attacking the agriculture industry is not the way to go, that would be like an US Forumster taking on the Oil industry. sorry guys but we'll have to be happy with what we have and get by.
 
I absolutely agree, Jarkari. I just hope that the local zoo industry is doing its utmost to push the process along. It's strict (and that's a good thing) but it needn't be glacially slow as a result. You're right when you point out that most animals eventually get approved. It just takes too damn long!

An off-shore quarantine facility in the US or a European country, that conforms to all standards requested by Australian authorities would be a wonderful investment.
 
It is too slow, and it's unfair. but they would be pushing it as hard as they can. don't forget that Primary Industries are some of the biggest earners in the eastern states. There fore there are two levels of government to deal with, and in the end our biggest zoos are funded by their state government. it's unfortunate but how it is. ARAZPA and Australian Zoos have a big task ahead of them but we'll get there eventually (let's just hope this ageing vaccine comes in so we can all live long enough to see them in our zoos).
 
What I find interesting is the potential explanation for the inaction that is mentioned above. If it's as simple as reticence within DAFF to replace a retired staff member... then some simple lobbying of the Minister could pay real dividends.
 
@jarkari

Well, fragile ecosystems exist also in other parts of the world. And some animal diseases are found worldwide (look at the amphibians). It is not only an australian problem.
Also, you did not say, how you would save the tasmanian devil from extinction. When you really have that big fears of diseases, than you must bring a part of healthy devils out of Australia to lower that risk (there might be other risk then, of course). So that means: Lower export restrictions.

A risk assesment is necessary, no doubt. But for many animal families like the swine/pig family they are done or it is not necessary to make it from the beginning, isn't it? That means, it should not take that much time.

Another argument: It doesn't matter if a herd of bongos or a herd of lesser kudus escape, correct? If yes: When bongos, which you can already find in some Australian zoos should be that dangerous for the environment, then they should be killed or shipped out imediately when I follow your opinion. In that case, it doesn't matter how long these animals have lived in Australia already. An escape could happen all the time.

But I'm very shure, that the risk of such an escape or the spread of a horrible disease by ZOO ANIMALS that had been long enough in quarantine and live in a good and well closed exhibit, is very, very low. And so I like the idea of a quarantine island for ZOO ANIMALS.

And once again: As many diseases show it's nearly impossible to prevent a continent or even a country for them. There is never a 100 percent security.


PS: By the way: I would be agree with an US-Forumster attacking US- or any other Oilindustry. Its time to come away from using fossil energy. But that don't belong in that thread.:)
 
I agree, and have more sympathies for this argument than biosecurity. At the same time - in nearly 150 years of zoo history in Australia there's still never been an exotic species take hold in this country that was not deliberately released. Zoos are trustworthy public (and private in some cases) institutions. I think if any zoo proposed to keep, say, free-range prairie dogs they would receive the opprobrium and official scrutiny they'd deserve. But, let's put it this way - an Australian zoo has already made that mistake and I don't expect it to happen twice.
Click to expand...
How about Fire Ants, Red Legged Earth Mites and Asian House Geckos. None of these species were deliberately released.

Biosecurity Australia seems happy to allow imports which will make foreign exporters such as Bananas from the Philippines which may transmit black Sicertoga or Apples from NZ which may have fire blight, but wont allow the import of things Australians want and have almost no chance of spreading a disease, pest or parasite.

I know we need biosecurity but it could be improved so species like an antelope or hipo from a disease free population in a zoo with a known history could imported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top