look steve i know that the ARAZPA accreditation program is still in its infancy but to be honest i think its appropriate that the DEWHA would only offer confiscated animals to ARAZPA zoos to ensure that they are cared for and managed under an high standard of care. unfortunately you are not yet an ARAZPA member and unfortunately the accreditation program has a long, long way to go. but there is no point changing the policy to something inferior when the the zoo world will soon catch up.
All states and territories have legislative and regulatory frameworks under which zoos are licensed to operate. All of them have animal welfare standards attached. ARAZPA is
not a regulatory authority. It is a self-selective professional association. Steve's zoo is licensed to operate in one of the states with the most stringent zoo regulation of all.
DEWHA's policy implicitly suggests that the Department views state and territory zoo regulation as inadequate to ensure a high standard of professionalism and animal welfare. So much so, in fact, that the birds are better off dead than in a non-ARAZPA zoo. I'm happy for DEWHA's position, if that is the case, to be canvassed and scrutinised. I expect to be able, after all, to scrutinise all government department policy.
In the mean-time, I'm going to take as a
prima facie assumption that a zoo that is accredited to operate in Queensland is suitably equipped to care for these birds.
I will be producing, in the next 24 hours (things are a bit hectic today) a petition supporting a) a moratorium on euthanising any of the birds and b) a change in DEWHA policy that would allow non-ARAZPA zoos including, though not necessarily limited to Darling Downs, any birds that are not housed in ARAZPA institutions. The numbers and any suitable (ie, coherent and non-abusive) comments will be forwarded daily to the Minister for the Environment's office and the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. I hope that Zoochatters will, on the whole, support this effort.
Put simply, these birds do not need to die. That is not a reasonable outcome on animal rights, animal welfare, conservation or anti-smuggling grounds. In terms of animal rights, the parrots did not choose this situation and are powerless to prevent it. In terms of animal welfare, it is surely apparent that an animal is better off alive than dead as long as they are housed and treated according to their needs. In terms of conservation, a number of these species are endangered and these birds may be able to contribute to self-sustaining captive populations in zoos. In terms of fighting animal smuggling, it is only bureaucratic bloody-mindedness that could identify mass slaughter of the victims of animal trafficking with an ethical attempt to combat that smuggling. CITES was set up to protect animals, not to provide the legal justification for killing them in their hundreds.