INTRODUCTION
A recent court case between Mr Bill Schwarzenberg and the Commonwealth of Australia, namely the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), who ordered the forfeiture of 173 parrots over approximately 19 species deemed illegal, has caused an astonished reaction throughout the parrot breeding community. Although his birds were deemed illegal Mr Schwarzenberg was not charged.
Various concerned bird keepers and media including Australian BirdKeeper Magazine expressed their concern by writing to the Department over the euthanasia issue—details below.
There has been a media release and communication from the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to Bird Keepers—details below.
COURT DENIES RETURN OF ILLEGAL BIRDS
Media Release Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
30 November 2009
A Victorian court has denied the return of 173 exotic birds to their keeper after finding they had been illegally imported into the country.
The result is a win for Australia’s fight against illegal wildlife trade, an issue taken seriously due to the risk it places on Australia’s unique flora and fauna.
Mike Smith from the federal environment department said that in addition to disease risks, Australia is a signatory to an international treaty which places regulations on the global wildlife trade.
‘Bird smuggling can put Australia’s biodiversity at great risk and can have long-lasting, devastating impacts on both the environment and the bird keeping industry,’ Smith said.
‘Exotic birds can carry some particularly nasty diseases which have the potential to wipe out native species or become invasive pests which compete with our native wildlife.
‘Illegal trade in wildlife is a serious crime with equally serious consequences. This is why the department has ramped up its focus on illegal wildlife trade over the last few years.’
The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts began investigating the involvement of the 61-year-old man from Sunbury, Victoria, in relation to bird smuggling back in November 2006.
A number of search warrants executed at premises throughout Victoria in 2007 led to the discovery of numerous exotic birds which were seized in August 2007 under national environment law.
The man applied to the courts to have his birds returned, however the County Court of Victoria concluded on Friday 27 November 2009 that the birds were illegally imported and he was denied the return of the birds.
Mr Smith said a number of the forfeited birds will be rehoused at government institutions while the remainder will need to be euthanased due to the potential risks they pose to the Australian environment.
The department is continuing its investigations into the illegal importation of exotic bird species in Australia and will continue to seize birds, animals and plants that have been smuggled into the country.
Australia is a signatory to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The birds in question were species listed under this convention.
*************************************************
Email from DEWHA on behalf of Exotic Birdkeepers Discussion Group
18 December 2009
Dear Bird Keepers,
Further information regarding the recent court case.
The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has been receiving numerous requests to house the exotic birds that were subject of a recent forfeiture ruling by the Victorian County Court.
The department has a strict policy in place for the handling of live forfeited exotic specimens. This policy takes into account certain principles such as:
• The protection of Australian biodiversity
• Conservation of endangered species through research, breeding or education
• Ensuring that illegal trade is not further stimulated
• The welfare of specimens
• The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and
• The Convention on Biological Diversity
The policy also takes into account legal obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The policy outlines three options for handling forfeited specimens. These are:
• Housing them within Australia at an Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria institutions (now called Zoo and Aquarium Association);
• Re-exporting them to an appropriate facility outside of Australia; or
• Humane euthanasia
We are now liaising with the Zoo and Aquarium Association regarding re-housing options for the forfeited birds. Facilities must meet very strict requirements in order to be deemed suitable to house the specimens including being a full institutional member of the Zoo and Aquarium Association. There are strict requirements in place to avoid laundering illegal birds, to ensure the animals will be well cared for and to address disease concerns.
Illegally obtained specimens have an unknown genetic and disease background and are therefore not likely to be accepted into conservation breeding programs. For this reason the re-exportation of illegal specimens overseas is difficult, very expensive and has limited conservation value.
An unfortunate consequence of illegal wildlife smuggling may be the euthanasia of the animals. This is not something that is taken lightly by the department. If a suitable facility is not available and re-exportation is not viable then the option of humane euthanasia must be considered. It is not a pleasant decision to make but it’s an unfortunate consequence of the criminal animal trade. Any euthanasia is carried out in a humane manner by a qualified veterinarian.
The department would appreciate any information you can provide which might help in the fight against wildlife smuggling and illegal wildlife trade. By stopping these activities, we can avoid these types of situations and protect Australia’s wildlife as well as the bird keeping industry.
******************************
Email from DEWHA on behalf of Exotic Birdkeepers Discussion Group
18 December 2009
Dear Bird Keepers,
Many of you have become aware of a recent court case which was heard before the Victorian County Court in late August 2009.
On Friday, 27 November 2009, the judge handed down his judgment and found that each of the 173 seized exotic parrot specimens should be forfeited to the Commonwealth as they had been used or were otherwise involved in the commission of an offence, namely possession of illegally imported specimens under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
The department is aware that many of you are concerned about how this court decision will affect you.
We are working with Australian and international law enforcement agencies to tackle wildlife trade crime. It is known that wildlife smuggling networks are operating within Australia, as well as overseas.
The main focus of this work is to target people who are actively involved in wildlife trafficking and illegal activities that support trafficking.
If you are not involved in these activities and are not actively assisting in the trade of smuggled birds within Australia, you should not be concerned.
To ensure that you are not sold illegal birds it is important that you keep good records of where your birds have come from and make sure that any birds or eggs you buy are from known sources.
Under the laws it is your responsibility as a bird keeper to be able to prove that any exotic bird you own is legal. It is important to understand that when the department decides to seize suspect birds or eggs it takes into account a number of relevant issues, including:
• Any reliable information to suggest that a person was knowingly or recklessly involved in an illegal activity such as holding or laundering illegal birds or eggs.
• Whether the person is cooperating with the investigation, and
• Whether there was a need to seize the bird or egg to assist in broader investigations, for example, to prove another person had acted illegally.
********************************************
Dear Editor, Australian BirdKeeper Magazine,
I am writing with regard to the ‘in situ’ seizure and impending confiscation of 173 exotic birds from a Victorian aviculturist.
It is now very clear that the DEWHA intends only to rehouse a percentage of these birds with the remainder of these innocent CITES listed birds to be euthanased—or perhaps SLAUGHTERED is a better way of putting it.
I feel that the department’s stance on this matter is totally unacceptable and that we—the aviculturists of Australia—must do everything in our power to prevent this from happening. If we, the bird keepers of Australia—regardless of the species we keep—cannot come together and work as one in the fight against this then what hope do we have of finding a clear and workable resolution with regards to the future of exotic bird keeping in this country?
Furthermore, with the department declaring that they will be KILLING these innocent birds, I thought that it should be noted that there is a provision within their regulations for private aviculturists to apply for a permit to allow them to set up an approved captive breeding program for CITES listed species. The acquiring of birds for this purpose can be achieved in two ways—these being that the birds can either come from documented legally imported stock or via an application to house forfeited or confiscated specimens. Given the circumstances I feel it may be worthwhile exploring this avenue.
Yours in aviculture,
Ian Ward
President, The Avicultural Society of New South Wales
20 December 2010
******************************
Melanie Swinnerton
Ag Assistant Director
International Wildlife Trade Section
DEWHA
Dear Melanie,
Thank you for the correspondence which I received yesterday regarding the birds from Victoria which are currently under seizure.
My initial reason for contacting your department was to enquire about the possibility of having my aviaries inspected and, if deemed necessary, to have my entire complex upgraded to a standard which may be deemed satisfactory to your department in order to hold some of the forfeited birds rather than see them subjected to euthanasia.
Although I am not aware of the status which one must carry in order to be allowed to hold birds such as these ones, I was trying to enquire as to the correct steps involved in applying for and holding such a licence of accreditation with the Zoo and Aquarium Association.
I have read with interest the six princples (outlined below) which are noted on your email, however for someone such as myself—who has been involved with birds of different types for approximately 50 years—I cannot make sense of the decision, nor find any good reason, to have these birds destroyed.
1. The protection of Australian biodiversity
In 1990 I was involved with a shipment of birds which came to us through the A.Q.I.S. facility in Spotswood, Victoria. I personally went to the UK in September of that year to select the birds to be imported, so I am well aware of the risk of disease which foreign birds may present to our native fauna. In saying this, however, the birds in question have—as far as I’m aware—been under the control of your department for some two years now and if they were carrying anything which was detrimental to their health I am sure such diseases would have presented themselves by now. It only takes one drop of blood to verify whether birds are carrying any condition or illness foreign to what is currently in our country at this time.
Believe me, those of us keeping exotic parrots take every precaution to prevent any of them escaping.
2. Conservation of endangered species through research, breeding or education
These birds which are currently under your control are birds which are widely sought after not only in this but many other countries. Why not allow people—who currently have all their birds registered with your department—to hold these birds under the proviso that they have them for breeding purposes only and that the birds can never be sold without the written approval of your department. Hence the conservation aspect is ensured.
3. Ensuring that illegal trade is not further stimulated
The fastest way to slow the trade of illegal birds is to allow these birds to be kept under specific terms of your department’s supervision. If people are aware that legitimate progeny of these birds are available to them, why would they risk a lifetime of work by buying from doubtful sources, knowing that there was a chance that they may lose them? If a particular type of bird is not available on the open market there is always someone who will be willing to bring some eggs into the country and take the chance that they will not be caught out—just to make a quick dollar.
4. The welfare of specimens
This point is certainly self explanatory. If the birds are housed in aviaries which give them room to fly and are clean, safe and provided with a healthy environment, this must surely be better for their welfare than the alternate suggestion that is being considered?
5. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Convention on Biological Diversity
This point refers to ‘Endangered Species’. Surely, then, the department should realise that these birds must be preserved for the benefit of aviculture in Australia into the future. The birds are already here. There is no sense in destroying them when a complete check by an avian veterinarian could verify whether or not any of them represent a threat to our country or wildlife.
6. The policy also takes into account legal obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Like most other Australian people, I don't understand many of the reasons that government departments do some of the things that they do. At times legislation is passed by some people that really have no idea of the consequences of their decisions—they are simply being guided by a person who is deemed at the time to be an expert on the subject. There is no way that the words ‘Legal Obligations’ can in any way, shape or form be used as an excuse to euthanase these beautiful birds—in fact it is a complete contradiction of points 2 and 4.
Like many people in this fine country of ours, I have kept and bred birds for most of my life—apart from the time when I served with the Australian Army during the Vietnam conflict. We have, in this country, some of the most knowledgeable aviculturists in the world.
Why not use them to the best of your advantage? Have them house and breed the birds in question which will, in turn, take the incentive away from those people who smuggle wildlife into our country for nothing but monetary gain.
I beg you to reconsider your decisions in regards to the birds in question. I personally believe that if these birds are put down for no good reason there will be such an outpouring of anger in the bird community that you will never again regain their trust—even to the extent of no longer getting everyone to comply with your requests to register their birds with the DEWHA.
Please take this letter in the way that it is intended. I am a person who generally keeps to myself and stays away from things which don't concern me directly. I can assure you that I do not make a habit of writing to government departments simply to wear my one finger out on this keyboard.
I hope for, and await, your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Hanington
Jabiru Aviaries NSW
19 January 2010
******************************
Comments
Post has no comments.