Adelaide Zoo Fennec Fox Importation

[Shirokuma]

I noted from the Adelaide Zoo blog that three fennec foxes arrived at Adelaide from Los Angeles.

It made me wonder, are canids/carnivores relatively easy to bring into Australia?

 

[Baldur]

I shall leave a proper answer up to our Australian friends, but far as I can tell from being on this forum 3 years now, 'easy' is not a word you can use in the context of Australian animal imports.

On this forum I've seen an Australian say he's never seen a vulture of any kind, another said he had never seen a Duiker, yet another said he had never seen a Guenon... the list goes on and on. Perhaps we in Europe and America should be more grateful for what we've got, no matter how often we get to see it?

 

[Shirokuma]

I know what you mean, I should say relatively possible compared with ungulates for example. Species management and regulation in Australasia has become something of a minor obsession for me recently, I don't know why but I find it fascinating.

 

[Hix]

Canids are easier to import than ungulates (or birds), but it's certainly not a simple process.



Hix

 

[Pertinax]

the list goes on and on. Perhaps we in Europe and America should be more grateful for what we've got, no matter how often we get to see it?

When I visited a few Australian Zoos some years back( Taronga, Melbourne, Perth + a few smaller wildlife Parks) I was quickly aware of the lack of diversity in 'exotic' species, particularly Ungulates, Primates and even Birds too. Very many species we take for granted are completely absent in Australian Zoos. On the other hand some do have comprehensive collections of marsupials and native birds such as Cockatoos which you don't see elsewhere in the World's zoos.

I believe at least some of the stringent importation restrictions/bans preventing more 'exotic' species coming into their Zoos, or to support existing 'dying' populations (the 'phaseout' species) must be at least partly historical, stemming from the past releases of non-native cats, foxes, rabbits, mice, buffalo, wild pigs, camels, several deer species etc which have so severely damaged the environment and native wildlife. New Zealand has similar stringent restrictions on imports too. I can't think of any other real reason?

And the huge distances mean its even more difficult for some Australians to see those species which are even poorly represented in their zoos- hence the many 'I've never seen a....' statements.

 

[MRJ]

I believe at least some of the stringent importation restrictions/bans preventing more 'exotic' species coming into their Zoos, or to support existing 'dying' populations (the 'phaseout' species) must be at least partly historical, stemming from the past releases of non-native cats, foxes, rabbits, mice, buffalo, wild pigs, camels, several deer species etc which have so severely damaged the environment and native wildlife. New Zealand has similar stringent restrictions on imports too. I can't think of any other real reason?

Pest potential is one reason for strict import requirements, the other is of course disease potential. There are many animal diseases that are absent from Australia that could potentially devastate our wildlife or cause massive losses to agriculture.

 

[Shirokuma]

I know why there are strict import restrictions and that is why I was surprised that they could bring in fennec foxes so I wondered what the circumstances are that allowed it in this instance.

 

[MRJ]

I know why there are strict import restrictions and that is why I was surprised that they could bring in fennec foxes so I wondered what the circumstances are that allowed it in this instance.

I'm no expert in this area (I keep well away from exotics) but one factor is historical - if the species have a history of being present in Australia in the past without problems then it is much easier to get them on the import list.

 

[jay]

I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the whys and wherefors of the restrictions but canids, felines and primates are regularly brought in to the country. I have stated that in the past that this means that a zoo here could specialise in these three groups, especially considering the divirsity within them.

 

[Steve Robinson]

I don't pretend to have a full understanding of the whys and wherefors of the restrictions but canids, felines and primates are regularly brought in to the country. I have stated that in the past that this means that a zoo here could specialise in these three groups, especially considering the divirsity within them.

Unless that zoo was in Queensland! Fennec foxes, dhole, maned wolves, hyena etc are all banned in this State.

 

[Jet]

MRJ hit the nail on the head. There are two main reasons: environmental risk (as covered by Federal EPBC Act and State environment regulations) and disease risk (as covered by Federal Quarantine Act and State quarantine regulations). Australia and NZ are the most disease free countries in the world, certainly when it comes to livestock diseases (including bird/chicken, horse, cow, pig and sheep diseases). In addition, a very significant proportion of our GDP is still based on these livestock industries and the red meat and chicken meat indutries for instance have significant political clout. Therefore, it is no surprise that ungulates and birds are the hardest to bring in. Expect to see regulations to get tougher for reptiles and fish too once authorities can get a better idea of what to do about the pet trade in some species. On the other hand, there are way less risks when it comes to most carnivores (although Australia also doesn't have rabies so there are still strict import and post-arrival quarantine requirements...and let's face it, security requirements for carnivores are usually greater anyway).

 

[jay]

Unless that zoo was in Queensland! Fennec foxes, dhole, maned wolves, hyena etc are all banned in this State.

sigh Are they really any more likely to be able to create feral populations here than in NSW? And why are the cats ok then? Or is a disease thing which then has me wondering if the disease knows when it has hit the border.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

sigh Are they really any more likely to be able to create feral populations here than in NSW? And why are the cats ok then? Or is a disease thing which then has me wondering if the disease knows when it has hit the border.

I can see - from a biological-conservation perspective - that Biosecurity in a island region/ecosystem (devoid of most other - conventional theory-wise "more developped" mammalian species is a major issue of concern). However, that economic reasons are given to apply Biosecurity and how these are then applied is an entirely different matter. There is surely a double-standard in there (as there is in similar vet regulations in Europe I must add).

1) For what it is worth: cats and dogs have been the major triggers behind marsupial and other Australian native fauna declines ....
Hence, if B.S. where applied correctly their import would have been banned.
2) As to application of B.S. and stringency: BTW the race horse incident some years ago proves lacunae exist in the present B.S. system - certainly where livestock et al are involved - and testing.

I suppose it remains a contentious issue for some time to come.

 

[Ara]

There certainly is a double standard! Big money talks.
If Australia had, say, a giraffe racing industry or (to be really absurd) a hippo racing industry, then giraffes and hippos would be travelling in and out of the country readily.

 

[Jet]

1) For what it is worth: cats and dogs have been the major triggers behind marsupial and other Australian native fauna declines ....

The main trigger of native fauna declines has actually been a species known as man (namely the arrival of Europeans). The destruction and loss of biodiversity in that 200 odd years since is phenominal and continues today. The main cause has been land clearing for cropping and development, but add to that habitat destruction through cattle, sheep, etc, particularly through pasture "improvement" (i.e. fertilising the land that killed most of the native grasses and introducing northern hemisphere grasses/weeds...although some species like kangaroos don't mind). Then there's the irrigation industries that have been allocated far too much water out of the rivers. Then as you say there's the thousands of feral (and domestic) cats and dogs responsible for direct predation. There are also a number of intentional (moronic!) exotic animal introductions that have also caused massive decline in native species and so it is important we don't allow any more high risk species to be introduced. In particular: predation by foxes has been devastating to small mammals, reptiles and ground birds; habitat destruction from rabbits including in amazing biodiversity places like Macquarie Island; the cane toads that are spreading across tropical Australia poisoning everything that tries to eat them (some animals adapt after initial population crashes but the northern quoll is one that is struggling right now and possibly not adapting like its cousin the eastern quoll has) and the carp that have ruined freshwater ecosystems. What mistakes or intentional stupidity by man will be next to put the last few nails in the coffin for most of Australia's unique wildlife?

 

[Steve Robinson]

While agreeing with much of your post, I think that it is important in a discussion on this subject that we never lose sight of the fact that no vertebrate pest species currently in this country have become so as a result of escapes or thefts from licensed zoos.

 

[Jet]

There are also a number of intentional (moronic!) exotic animal introductions that have also caused massive decline in native species and so it is important we don't allow any more high risk species to be introduced.

Just a small point of clarification as I can see that this could be read in a way I did not intend. I was having a rant about biodiversity decline and why we have to have appropriate risk measures in place for importation. I was not entirely clear that the past problems were caused by intentional introduction of animals directly to the wild such as through the acclimatisation societies of the 1800s or by the general public in the case of carp or to sugar farms by scientists in the case of cane toads, not the introduction of species into Australia for zoos that have appropriate quarantine and security arrangements. I agree zoos are generally excellent at managing risks.

 

[MRJ]

Just a small point of clarification as I can see that this could be read in a way I did not intend. I was having a rant about biodiversity decline and why we have to have appropriate risk measures in place for importation. I was not entirely clear that the past problems were caused by intentional introduction of animals directly to the wild such as through the acclimatisation societies of the 1800s or by the general public in the case of carp or to sugar farms by scientists in the case of cane toads, not the introduction of species into Australia for zoos that have appropriate quarantine and security arrangements. I agree zoos are generally excellent at managing risks.

Agree with everything you say except to make it clear that cane toads were introduced against scientific advise. The toads were introduced by the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, a farmer-controlled organisation. A number of independent scientists opposed the introduction, to no avail.

 

[Monty]

The main trigger of native fauna declines has actually been a species known as man (namely the arrival of Europeans). The destruction and loss of biodiversity in that 200 odd years since is phenominal and continues today. The main cause has been land clearing for cropping and development, but add to that habitat destruction through cattle, sheep, etc, particularly through pasture "improvement" (i.e. fertilising the land that killed most of the native grasses and introducing northern hemisphere grasses/weeds...although some species like kangaroos don't mind). Then there's the irrigation industries that have been allocated far too much water out of the rivers. Then as you say there's the thousands of feral (and domestic) cats and dogs responsible for direct predation. There are also a number of intentional (moronic!) exotic animal introductions that have also caused massive decline in native species and so it is important we don't allow any more high risk species to be introduced. In particular: predation by foxes has been devastating to small mammals, reptiles and ground birds; habitat destruction from rabbits including in amazing biodiversity places like Macquarie Island; the cane toads that are spreading across tropical Australia poisoning everything that tries to eat them (some animals adapt after initial population crashes but the northern quoll is one that is struggling right now and possibly not adapting like its cousin the eastern quoll has) and the carp that have ruined freshwater ecosystems. What mistakes or intentional stupidity by man will be next to put the last few nails in the coffin for most of Australia's unique wildlife?

I disagree that man has and farming have caused extinctions and and large declines. We have huge areas of national parks and state forests as well as agricultural areas where many species could thrive. The problem is cats, foxes, rabbits and cane toads. Wild dogs and dingos have also only been here about 4,000 years and also led to many extinctions. The problem is not lack of habitat it is abundance of predators. This why larger species like the Kangaroos and larger wallabies are doing so well.

Those problem species are either very efficient predators or species which are extremely rapid breeders. I suspect Fennec Foxes would also be efficient predators in Australia, but the chances of enough escaping to form breeding populations which were uncontrollable would be 0%.

Many other introduced species are vilified and eradicated due to not being native, while there is no chance of them causing serious environmental problems. Blackbuck is one example where they were eradicated because they could be, not because they were causing a problem. Hog deer luckily are managed as they are an endangered species in their native habitat. I suspect if they were in Qld they would be eradicated like the Blackbuck weather a problem or not.

 

[Jet]

I disagree that man has and farming have caused extinctions and and large declines. We have huge areas of national parks and state forests as well as agricultural areas where many species could thrive.

Part of my point was that those pest animals were introduced by man (as were a lot of weeds that are outcompeting native plants and changing ecosystems). However, I still think that native vegetation clearance has been the leading cause of terrestrial biodiversity decline in Australia so far, heavily exacerbated by foxes, cats and dogs etc as you say. I agree that in some ecosystems, particularly in the Rangelands and northern Australia invasive species are the main threats, together with changed fire regimes. However, land clearance rates are phenominal across many ecosystems (most of which are not included or under-represented in national parks). As an example, many plants and animals are/were endemic to temperate grassy ecosystems (woodlands and temperate grasslands) and these are the most cleared systems in Australia because they are relatively flat/lowland and have the best soils that are suitable to agriculture. On the other hand, most national parks are in areas where it is much harder to have agriculture and urban areas (eg. most in NSW, Vic and SE Qld are concentrated along the Great Dividing Range). Similarly overallocation of water from freshwater systems (primarily for agriculture), land clearance (in this case filling in of wetlands) and other threats caused by man have been the main cause of decline in aquatic biodiversity. Overfishing and other threats by man has also been the main cause of marine biodiversity decline.

Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have profitable agriculture and fishing indutries as these have been the backbone of Australia, just that it has taken us along time to realise that we made a lot of mistakes to try and replicate European landscapes and to assume that fish stocks are endless. Most farmers and fishers are now operating in a more sustainable manner and have a better understanding of Australia's unique landscape, biodiversity and climate but it is all too late for many ecosystems and unfortunately some of those in industry are still in denial and/or need more assistance. In addition, every Australian needs to be more sustainable if we are to arrest the decline in biodiversity, let alone recover it.

ps. When land clearance was listed under the federal EPBC Act as a key threatening process, the threatened species scientific committee noted it was "strongly of the view that land clearance has been the most significant threatening process in Australia since European settlement". All KTPs, including those for foxes and cats etc can be found at:
EPBC Listed Key Threatening Processes