Disclaimer
This discussion paper has been prepared for the purposes of discussion and comment. It does not
represent government policy and does not commit the Queensland Government or the Environmental
Protection Agency to the policies expressed or to any future action.
Neither the Queensland Government nor the Environmental Protection Agency accepts liability for any
actions taken by individuals or organisations on the basis of this document.
© The State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency, 2002
RE440 OCT2002
ISSN 1037-4698
Minister’s foreword
Queensland is one of the most biologically diverse places in the
world. The state’s splendid landscape is abundant with wildlife;
some not found anywhere else on the planet.
There are many and varied views in the Queensland community
about wildlife, ranging from a strong need to protect all wildlife, to a
belief in the use of wildlife for recreation or financial gain.
What is evident from this review of wildlife management is that,
without exception, the people of Queensland value their wildlife and
want to ensure that the state’s diverse species remain a part of the
landscape into the future.
In considering the future of wildlife management in Queensland,
questions need to be asked about the roles and responsibilities of
government, the community and industry, as well as the appropriate
level of protection required to ensure the sustainability of our fauna
and flora is maintained.
While there is no doubt the survival of some plant and animal species
relies on strict regulations and the enforcement of laws protecting
wildlife, there are other cases where current regulations are out of
proportion with the potential risks to nature conservation. For other
species, the issues of management may not directly relate to
conservation of wildlife at all and may be better managed through
other means.
This discussion paper examines the efficacy of wildlife management
generally, including Queensland’s conservation efforts with respect to
particular species of wildlife. By opening up debate on these
important issues affecting our wildlife, the wildlife regulation can be
better positioned for conservation into the future.
This review was one of the most widely consultative reform
processes undertaken by the Environmental Protection Agency. It is
the product of two years work consulting with Queenslanders with an
interest in wildlife matters. This feedback has helped to inform and
clarify the policy agenda for wildlife management in the future.
On behalf of the State Government, I commend this discussion paper
to you and invite you to respond to the issues covered.
Dean Wells
Minister for the Environment
Section 1
Contents
Ministers foreword
Review of wildlife management
Introduction
Background
History of wildlife laws in Queensland
The future of wildlife management
What is wildlife management?
Scope of the review
Public consultation program
Directions for the future
Section 2
Package of reforms
Licence structure
Schedules
Movement of wildlife
Exotic species
Administration
Dead wildlife and wildlife parts
DNA and microchip provisions
Wildlife rescue permits
Managing human interactions with wildlife
Other proposed changes
Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Review of wildlife management
Wildlife management is often complex and emotive. It regularly opens up debate about the best ways to approach it. The methods for
managing wildlife are as varied as the opinions that exist among the diverse stakeholders.
The government's role in wildlife management needs to reflect community interests to ensure that Queensland’s unique and diverse
wildlife remains viable in the wild and that, through legislation, policy and action, the aims of nature conservation are achieved.
Queenslanders place great value on their native wildlife and overwhelmingly want to see it conserved for future generations to
enjoy. Besides enjoying wildlife in natural settings, people interact with animals in many ways. For example, many people keep animals, such as birds and reptiles for recreational purposes, they sell them in pet shops and care for those that are orphaned, sick or injured for release back to the wild.
The State Government’s role in ensuring native wildlife is protected and secure in the wild is achieved in a variety of ways including
legislation, conservation plans, habitat preservation and education.
The three main pieces of legislation used to manage wildlife in Queensland are the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the Nature
Conservation Regulation 1994 and the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Nature Conservation Regulation 1994 in relation to wildlife
management to ensure it is still working effectively and efficiently. As part of this process the EPA consulted widely with stakeholders and the public. The review found that the Regulation was complex in parts and contained a number of unnecessary provisions.
The Wildlife Management Review Discussion Paper recognises and responds to issues raised during the consultation period. The paper
contains recommendations aimed at refining and updating the Regulation to make it more user-friendly and transparent. It also
ensures the key focus for wildlife management is the conservation of Queensland’s wildlife, rather than management for management’s
sake.
Comments on this discussion paper are welcome. Your submissions can be sent to us at:
Wildlife Management Review
PO Box 155
Brisbane Albert Street
QLD 4002
Or e-mail to:
regulation.review@epa.qld.gov.au
All envelopes should be marked with reference number BNE 1668.
The closing date for submissions is 22 November, 2002.
Introduction
The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Act) and the Nature Conservation Regulation 1994 (Regulation) came into effect in
December 1994. When drafted, this legislation was at the forefront of wildlife management in Australia and reflected the conservation
issues and community values of the time. However, legislation is anevolving instrument of government. Community concerns and values
on conservation have changed in recent years and it is timely to examine the Regulation and the direction of wildlife management in
Queensland.
The current legislation enables the EPA to use a licensing system to regulate how people take, use and keep wildlife. The Regulation was designed to provide a framework for a system of licensing activities affecting wildlife. This system has been successful in many areas, with fewer animals being trapped illegally in the wild. However, this system is now seen as complex and it is recognised that there is scope to improve and simplify the wildlife laws to ensure they are focused on conservation outcomes.
To address this, the EPA announced a review of the Regulation for wildlife management in 2000. An extensive public consultation
process followed to gather community views on the issues of concern and ideas for future directions.
The key recommendations resulting from the review include:
• changing licensing requirements to reduce unnecessary constraints, fees and administration;
• better structuring of the wildlife schedules to remove repetition and provide consistency across different licence types;
• simplifying and/or removing unnecessary provisions; and
• tightening regulation where threats to conservation are evident.
Background
In May 2000, the EPA produced a scoping paper for a review of the wildlife components of the Regulation.
The paper recommended the review simplify the complex mechanisms in the Regulation to reduce red tape and refocus the
regulatory and administrative frameworks used to deliver key wildlife conservation outcomes.
The aims of the review were to:
• continue to provide for effective wildlife conservation;
• minimise government "red tape";
• simplify the Regulation so clients could follow and understand it;
• reduce duplication with federal and interstate regulations;
• provide scope for increased self-regulation where appropriate;
and
• correct any errors or omissions in the existing Regulation.
History of wildlife laws in Queensland
Traditionally, wildlife has been considered a resource for people to use. This view has led to habitat modification, vegetation clearing and the introduction of exotic species to the wild. The conservation status of many wildlife species has been adversely affected by unsustainable land use and wildlife harvesting practices.
A number of legislative tools were developed in the 1950s to manage the movement of plants and, to a lesser extent, preserve native
wildlife habitats. These laws were targeted at protecting agriculture and focused on preventing the spread of agricultural disease
and exotic pests.
The introduction of the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 represented a major advance in the protection of wildlife and regulation of
activities that were seen as posing a threat to the conservation of native wildlife. This Act introduced a system of licences for
the keeping of a range of native species and protected some native wildlife.
At the time, most Australian states were introducing similar legislation to regulate the taking, possession and use of native
wildlife. It was recognised nationally that the conservation of wildlife was under threat and that taking wildlife for trade was a contributing factor. Until this time, most wildlife laws related to the welfare of wildlife.
The Nature Conservation Act 1992 changed wildlife law in Queensland. For instance, the Act introduced substantial changes
to the recreational keeping of reptiles and birds and for the commercial sale of birds. While there were significant differences between the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 and the Nature Conservation Act 1992, the fundamental principles and objectives of the legislation did not change.
The future of wildlife management
The EPA’s aim for wildlife management is to contribute to the conservation of native wildlife through a modern, efficient and
effective management framework that does not unnecessarily impose on the lawful activities of Queenslanders in pursuing their interests. This approach provides for the management and conservation of protected animals while enabling reasonable and acceptable uses of wildlife.
To achieve this, emphasis will be shifted from low-risk activities and issues for the welfare of individual animals to building partnerships with groups such as the animal welfare and wildlife organisations and other government agencies. Greater emphasis
will be placed on maintaining secure populations of all native wildlife species across the landscape.
What is wildlife management?
The management of native wildlife (both plants and animals) in Queensland is a core function of the State Government, which is
delivered through the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service within the EPA.
While the primary objectives are the protection and sustainable use of wildlife and its habitat, there are four major areas:
• conservation of rare and threatened species (research and recovery programs);
• management of native species in protected areas (resource identification and on-ground management);
• community wildlife conservation (education, interpretation and Land for Wildlife); and
• management and use of protected wildlife.
This review focuses on the legislation and policy aspects associated with the management and use of protected wildlife. Within this focus area, there are four main themes:
• human/wildlife interactions and conflict;
• overabundance or perceived aggregations of common animal species;
• sustainable use of wildlife (animals and plants); and
• recreational and commercial keeping/use of wildlife.
Nationally, the fundamental approach to the management of these issues has been through the licensing of people to take, keep or
use both wild and captive native animals. Despite attempts to implement other management strategies in Australia, licensing remains the most effective form of tracking the use of wildlife.
Scope of the review
The key amendments proposed in this discussion paper are in the areas of recreational and commercial keeping and use of wildlife.
Other changes under consideration relate to processed product provisions, moving wildlife, wildlife care, commercial use of
wildlife including commercial feeding, and other miscellaneous administrative provisions. The review process also provides the
opportunity to rectify minor errors or omissions affecting the Regulation.
Licences relating to unique areas of wildlife legislation, such as museum licences, are unlikely to be affected by major change.
However, other proposed amendments may affect these licence holders.
A series of changes are required to the Act to complement proposed changes to the Regulation.
The review did not consider broad-scale amendments to the protected plant provisions because they were recently reviewed and amended.
Amendments to conservation plans for wildlife is a separate process and is not discussed. However, substantive changes to the Regulation may impact on the operation of various conservation plans.
Public consultation program
In March 2001, seven public meetings were held across Queensland to explore more efficient ways to legislate the keeping and
use of wildlife. As a result, 1112 submissions were collected. About 25 percent of these dealt with changes to the Regulation. The bulk of the comments received related to wildlife policies and EPA resources.
Another 367 comments were made through written submissions. Half of the written submissions addressed changes to the legislation.
The public submissions presented a broad range of ideologies about how wildlife should be managed in Queensland. Many contributors
maintain that the taking, keeping and use of wildlife should be largely unregulated. Others argue wildlife should be wild and that
any activities relating to the confinement of wildlife was at best inappropriate, or at least should be strictly regulated.
Many submissions indicated the Regulation was unnecessarily complex. In particular, it was suggested the licensing structure
combined with the scheduling regime made the Regulation difficult to understand.
The issue of exotic wildlife attracted considerable attention. Opposing views were expressed regarding the keeping of exotic
species and the range of animals that may be lawfully kept in Queensland. At the time of public consultation, Environment
Australia had indicated the National Exotic Bird Registration Schem (NEBRS) would be disbanded. Consequently there was considerable
uncertainty expressed about what regulatory controls the state was likely to adopt.
Many respondents said the restriction on the use of dead wildlife was inappropriate. It was suggested dead wildlife could be
used for taxidermy, human consumption (wildlife taken under damage mitigation permits, such as ducks and kangaroos) and as food for
captive-bred and rescued wildlife.
Issues surrounding the keeping of rescued wildlife not capable of being returned to the wild were raised.
Damage mitigation permits were discussed, and varying opinions expressed as to the availability of these permits, the use of
wildlife taken under permit and the competency of individuals in ensuring the activity is humane.
Most of the issues raised about compliance monitoring related to DNA and microchip provisions.
All comments and recommendations for change were compiled and, in March 2002, a series of value alignment activities were held with
key stakeholder groups to refine and seek support for a package of reforms.
Directions for the future
The review has set a coherent reform agenda focused on less regulation for low-risk activities. For higher-risk activities with
the potential to threaten the survival of species in the wild or provide for inappropriate trade, keeping or use of wildlife, it
is proposed the Regulation will be tightened.
At the same time, the review highlighted aspects of the Regulation that burden people who are doing the right thing. Amendments to
fix these issues will not only recognise the lawful pursuits of those people, but also free up more EPA resources to focus on more
important conservation outcomes.
The EPA aims to reduce the administrative workload of wildlife rangers through the recent establishment of a central unit to coordinate the processing of environmental licences and permits. The Licences and Permits Co-ordination Unit has allowed rangers to
refocus their activities on education, relationship building and compliance. This review process will help clarify the future roles
of wildlife rangers.
The major changes proposed in this review are in:
• Licence structure;
• Schedules;
• Movement of wildlife;
• Exotic species;
• Administration;
• Dead wildlife and wildlife parts;
• DNA and microchip provisions ;
• Wildlife rescue permits; and
• Managing human interactions with wildlife.
Package of reforms
Licence structure
Context
The EPA manages wildlife by licensing people to carry out certain activities relating to the keeping, take and use of both wild
and captive native animals. While other opportunities exist for wildlife management, licensing remains the most common form of regulating the use of wildlife and how humans interact with it. To a large extent, this system has been successful in reducing the number of animals being taken from the wild.
The EPA currently grants the following types of licences:
• commercial wildlife;
• recreational wildlife;
• recreational wildlife (specialist);
• international wildlife;
• commercial wildlife harvesting;
• recreational wildlife harvesting;
• wildlife demonstrator;
• wildlife exhibitor;
• wildlife farming;
• museum; and
• herbarium.
The EPA also issues other permits and authorities for wildlife. These are:
• damage mitigation permits;
• educational purposes permits;
• permits to keep protected wildlife;
• permits to keep prohibited wildlife;
• rescue permits;
• scientific purpose permits;
• wildlife movement permits;
• commercial whale watching permits;
• clearing permits;
• collection authorities;
• Aboriginal custom authorities; and
• Island custom authorities.
It is recognised that the current licensing system is unnecessarily complex and contains overlapping activities in some cases.
The Act was criticised for failing to adequately distinguish between the types of activities that a person may conduct under each licence. For example, the distinction between commercial and recreational activities is often blurred and subsequently some recreational licensees operate as though they have a commercial licence. This was considered inequitable and was addressed in the review.
There are a number of benefits that flow-on to clients from simplifying the legislation. These include reducing the administrative
burden for clients and EPA officers, improving the delivery of service and providing cost savings for all parties.
The community holds strong views on how the EPA should structure its licensing system. Some people support keeping the existing
system, while others advocate following in the footsteps of other
states to provide consistency of regulation across state boundaries.
These suggestions have been taken into consideration in developing a range of reforms designed to reduce the number of licence types and provide consistency across differing licence types. The EPA believe the following recommendations respond to the key issues
raised during the review process and will simplify and modernise the licence structure for wildlife management.
Recommendations
1. Remove the requirement for annual renewal of recreational licences, extending their validity to five years. The annual renewal of recreational licences is administratively inefficient and does not add value to the monitoring of trade in
protected species. It is recommended that a similar cost to that currently charged for one year apply for a new five-year licence,
providing significant savings to clients.
2. Captive-bred, commonly kept reptiles to be sold through pet shops. People will no longer be able to collect reptiles from the wild for recreational keeping. However, they will be able to buy a range of commonly kept, captive-bred reptiles through qualified pet shops. Recreational keepers of reptiles currently sell many of these species and this approach will provide consistency across licence types. Pet shops will be required to meet accredited training guidelines and comply with a code of
practice to qualify.
3. Commercial dealers will require a commercial wildlife licence to sell a limited range of otherwise licence-exempt
species that are subject to ongoing trapping. This proposal responds to evidence of increased trapping of a limited range
of species from the wild for commercial trade, and will allow for the movement of affected species to be tracked. This includes species such as peaceful and diamond doves. Individuals with recreationally kept licence-exempt species will not have to obtain a licence.
4. International wildlife licence to be abolished. International wildlife (non-native electus parrot Electus roratus and green python Morelia viridis) will come under a recreational wildlife licence.
5. The "specialist" licence to be abolished. An endorsement regime will be introduced to allow licence holders to keep restricted wildlife under a recreational licence. The endorsed licence will be valid for five years.
6. Remove or relax restrictions on trade between different classes of licences, provided the species to which the
transaction relates can be held legally under both licences. This will allow people who hold different classes of licences,
such as wildlife exhibitors, wildlife demonstrators, commercial and recreational licence holders, to trade captive bred wildlife
more freely, providing the intended use of the wildlife under both licences is compatible. This will serve to further reduce the
need for any take from the wild.
7. The EPA will ensure codes of practice under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 relating to wildlife welfare
are consistent with the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The EPA is obliged to ensure
licence holders meet basic animal welfare requirements. The Queensland Wildlife Parks Association, the Pet Industry Joint
Advisory Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) have guidelines and standards for
animal welfare. The EPA will work with these groups and other interested parties to ensure the welfare interests of animals are
part of the Agency’s licensing procedures.
8. Wildlife exhibitors to demonstrate appropriate premises to operate. The Regulation requires a person to
display wildlife in a way that educates observers about conservation and ecology of the wildlife. However, it is not clear how
this should be done or what constitutes an appropriate exhibit. Clarification will ensure that proposed wildlife exhibits do not degrade or inappropriately present wildlife.
9. Enable the EPA to enter into agreements for the captive breeding of rare and threatened species. This
approach will enable some institutions or individuals to enter into an agreement with the EPA to take, keep and use certain rare
and threatened species for collaborative research or re-stocking of wild populations.
10. A tiered conservation values system to be introduced. Current commercial take provisions can be restrictive
and do not always reflect the best interests of the community. For instance, the taking of common animals for particular uses
(e.g. snakes for venom extraction) is an area where the community benefits outweigh the conservation value of restricting the
taking of the animal from the wild. The EPA recommends introducing a provision for waiving or reducing the conservation value
attached to fauna (currently $1100 per animal) to provide for public interest, captive breeding and education priorities.
Stringent guidelines will ensure this provision is not open to abuse by individuals deriving private benefit from the use of a
natural resource.
11. The responsibility for wildlife farming to be investigated with relevant government departments. Most
wildlife farming practices involve closed farming systems where all animals are bred in captivity. Any proposals to take wildlife
from the wild will continue to be managed by the EPA.
12. Introduce consistency across licence types for commonly kept species. Currently, holders of commonly
kept wildlife do not require a recreational licence unless they engage in trade above a certain threshold. The threshold is set
at two commonly kept animals in a month and up to five in 12 months. The EPA is proposing to revise this to allow a person to keep
and use commonly kept species, including birds and reptiles, without a licence provided the person does not buy or sell more than
10 commonly kept animals in any 12 month period.
13. Redefine the distinction between recreational and commercial licences to clarify boundaries. A clearer
definition outlining the difference between a recreational and commercial licence will remove confusion about the overlap
between activities and reduce the incidence of recreational licensees performing spurious commercial activities. For example,
the definition will prevent people who keep birds under a recreational wildlife
licence from trading at a level that is considered commercial.
Schedules
Context
Schedules are a necessary part of the Regulation. Coupled with the Regulation, they stipulate how people can use and keep wildlife
and what type of licence they will need to carry out the activity lawfully. However, they can be complicated and, at times, repetitive.
The wildlife review has sought to simplify the legislation and ensure it is updated in line with current conservation issues
and policy developments. Queensland’s wildlife was placed in schedules based on the prevailing threats when the Regulation
was introduced in 1994. Shifts in the environmental and social climate mean some of the concerns addressed through the provision
of schedules are no longer relevant.
The review examined recreational and commercial uses of wildlife and revised the rankings assigned to some species in the
relevant schedules. For instance, species now commonly available and with limited risk to conservation such as galahs and sulphur-crested cockatoos have been moved to the licence-exempt schedule. Species deemed to have a higher commercial value and
which are at a greater risk of unlawful take from the wild, such as the beautiful firetail finch and the black-breated
button-quail, will be assigned to a schedule that provides a greater level of protection.
The Regulation lists wildlife in the following schedules:
• Schedule 4A – Exempt captive-bred birds;
• Schedule 5 – Processed products;
• Schedule 7 – Commercial birds;
• Schedule 8 – Commonly kept wildlife;
• Schedule 9 – Domestic animals;
• Schedule 10 – Farm wildlife;
• Schedule 11 – Recreational wildlife; and
• Schedule 12 – Restricted wildlife.
The following recommendations will allow for the keeping of a wider range of bird species without a licence, while ensuring that
the taking of birds from the wild and any associated risks to the natural environment or conservation values are subject to
a transparent licensing regime.
Recommendations
1. The range of species in the licence-exempt area of the schedule to be increased. This reform will allow people
to keep certain common species of wildlife without a licence for recreational purposes. However, because there is still
significant potential for the taking of certain species from the wild for trade purposes, people wishing to enter into the
commercial trade of these species will continue to be required to obtain a licence and keep records. The species to be
exempted include:
• sulphur-crested cockatoo Cacatua galerita;
• long-billed corella Cacatua tenuirostris;
• little corella Cacatua sanguinea;
• western corella Cacatua pastinator;
• galah Cacatua rosiecapilla;
• princess parrot Polytelis alexandrae; and
• scarlet-chested parrot Neophema splendida.
2. The keeping of an extended range of species (i.e. "softbills") to be further considered.
Aviculturalists (bird breeders) have proposed the keeping of birds collectively known as softbills.There are many issues arising
from this proposal, with conflicting views among stakeholder groups about whether it is appropriate to keep or breed softbills.
The issues of concern include the specialised keeping requirements and the risks associated with taking these species from the wild. Further, any new licensing requirements for a small number of keepers will need to be discussed with the Minister’s Recreational
and Commercial Animal Management Advisory Committee so that they may advise the Minister on the implications. If, in future,
a decision is made to allow the keeping of these birds, an amendment to the Regulation will be necessary.
3. The harvesting and sale of animals commonly known as birdeating or whistling spiders will be regulated. The
pet industry and scientists have raised concerns about the keeping and use of Theraphosids, as there is limited knowledge about
their distribution or conservation status in the wild. It has been suggested that as many as 15 species of these spiders
are commercially traded in Queensland and are sourced from the wild in increasing quantities. These spiders often attract
considerable prices in the commercial sector, and there is concern that the unregulated trade may contribute to significant
declines in their populations. It is proposed that these species be brought into the commercial harvesting regime, providing
valuable information on the level of take and sustainability of populations as well as encouraging captive breeding for
commercial trade in the future. No licence will be required to keep these spiders recreationally.
4. Some licence-exempt bird species to be included in the recreational purposes schedule to improve control of
illegal take from the wild. There is evidence that some species, particularly the true-colour bird species currently
listed in the licence-exempt captive-bred species list, are being trapped in large quantities. It is proposed to elevate a
limited number of currently licence-exempt bird species into the recreational area of the schedules to provide more scope
for controlling illegal trade and reduce risks posed to wild populations. This will include
double-barred finches and chestnut-breasted mannikin finches.
Movement of wildlife
Context
In Queensland, protected native wildlife can be moved in one of four ways:
• wildlife movement permits;
• conditional exemptions under the Regulation (e.g. a movement advice);
• general exemptions; or
• if an animal is declared a "processed product".
Transactions involving the movement of wildlife are monitored using a range of mechanisms. Most transactions require a permit
or document to prove the activity is authorised. Some items are exempt from any requirement, other than the requirement of the
holder to tell the EPA where the wildlife was obtained.
The type of approval required to move wildlife depends on the risk the activity poses to conservation. Some wildlife movements
are deemed to pose a serious threat and are prohibited, or have strict criteria attached. Other transactions relate to the movement
of items made from protected animals such as farmed emus. Where these animals are lawfully kept and turned into a substantially different type of product (i.e. a "processed product"), they may be excluded from both licensing and movement provisions.
Wildlife movement permits are now considered unnecessary for most transactions. However, the EPA needs to be able to continue
to monitor transactions to ensure that any trade involves lawfully obtained wildlife. Self-issued movement advices are now
considered the most effective way to track transactions. This approach is more efficient because it does not require assessment
by the EPA and provides for adequate reporting of transactions.
Aspects of the Regulation controlling the movement of wildlife are complex. To overcome this, it is proposed that movement
provisions for all types of recreational and commercial licences be made uniform. In this way, many clients will benefit from an increased use of movement advices where previously wildlife movement permits were required. Other clients such as those who keep reptiles and amphibians for recreational purposes will require movement advices for trade.
If the commercial sale of reptiles is to proceed, the use of movement advices is considered vital to minimise the incidence of
illegal take from the wild.
The following changes will improve the monitoring of trade in species with risks to conservation, while at the same time
provide consistency across licence types and remove unnecessary administrative requirements.
Recommendations
1. Movement of reptiles requirements to be aligned with movement of native birds requirements. This will simplify
the Regulation and provide consistency across similar licence types.
2. Movement permits to be abolished for most transactions in favour of movement advices. This will provide
for self-issued transaction advices, saving time through standardised documentation and administration.
3. Costs of movement advices to be standardised across all licence types. There are currently some disparities
in the cost of movement advices for commercial and recreational wildlife keepers. A person who is unlicensed or holds a
commercial wildlife licence must pay $5.65 for a movement advice, whereas a person who holds a recreational wildlife licence
currently pays $1.05. It is proposed that this discrepancy be corrected and that a standard fee of approximately $2.50 per
movement advice be applied. The simplification of the licensing laws and the decrease in costs made possible through
longer-term licensing will be designed to deliver net cost savings to clients or be cost neutral.
4. Make the person who sells wildlife responsible for issuing the movement advice when the wildlife being sold is kept
in Queensland. This will clarify who is responsible for issuing a movement advice.
5. People who hold a wildlife exhibitor licence will no longer be obliged to submit an itinerary to display wildlife at
a location other than the licensed premises. Wildlife exhibitors are currently required to notify the EPA in advance of
any offpremise educational presentations. This requirement will be changed to allow licensed exhibitors to show lawfully
obtained wildlife without notifying the administering authority, providedthe display is to be conducted within Queensland.
Exotic Species
Context
Preventing exotic species from being introduced into Queensland is a key objective of this conservation legislation. Exotic
species (animals and plants) pose a significant threat to the conservation of native species, habitats and ecosystems. The Rural
Lands Protection Act 1985 and regulations also regulate the keeping and introduction of exotic mammals and reptiles in
Queensland.
Some exotic species pose a relatively low-risk of escaping and establishing in the wild, while others are virulent and may spread
to surrounding natural environments. Exotic reptiles, for instance, constitute a major threat in terms of their ability to
establish viable breeding populations.
Many species of exotic wildlife are already widely kept in Queensland with no licensing requirements under the
Nature Conservation Regulation 1994 and pose little risk of establishing in the wild. However, their introduction and keeping is
also regulated by other legislation. An assessment of the risks posed by some bird species already in Australia in large numbers,
but not Queensland, has been conducted for the purposes of this Regulation. As a result of this particular risk assessment, the
EPA proposes to include 116 species determined to be a low-risk to the state’s biodiversity and conservation values on the
domestic animal list of the Regulation. This means that those species can be freely imported into Queensland from within
Australia without reference to this piece of legislation. A further range of species assessed as posing a conservation risk will
be placed on the prohibited wildlife list and will not be allowed in Queensland without an appropriate licence (e.g.
wildlife exhibitor’s licence) and/or permit from other agencies.
It is currently illegal to bring a live bird, reptile, mammal or amphibian that is not a protected or domestic animal into
Queensland without a wildlife movement permit. It is also illegal to introduce and keep exotic mammals and reptiles without a
permit under the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 and regulations. In the near future, exotic amphipians will be added under the
new Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 and associated regulations.
There is no restriction under the Nature Conservation Regulation 1994 prohibiting the movement of exotic species, other
than prohibited or international wildlife, once the wildlife has been lawfully imported into Queensland. This Regulation also does
not prohibit the release of exotic species into the wild, although the Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 prohibits such
activities. There is a major conservation risk associated with the release of exotic species to the wild, and this has been
addressed in the review and a concurrent review of the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Regulation 2002.
The following recommendations have been made to allow for the keeping of low-risk exotic bird species, while ensuring
the introduction of high-risk species will be regulated in Queensland.
Recommendations
1. The wilful and deliberate release of exotic species to the wild will be prohibited. This will address the intentional release of non-native species in Queensland, unless acting under a lawful authority or an exemption.
2. Obligate a person to ensure that wildlife does not escape. This will require the holders of exotic wildlife to take reasonable precautions to ensure that exotic species kept in captivity do not escape to the wild. Penalties will apply if
holders fail to perform their duties.
3. Allow people to keep a range of exotic birds considered a low-risk to conservation. A total of 116 species of exotic birds already known to exist in Australia will be placed on the domestic animals schedule, thereby allowing these species to
be kept without a licence (see Appendix A).
4. Add a range of high-risk exotic bird species to the prohibited wildlife list. The birds listed in Appendix B have been assessed as posing a risk to conservation in Queensland and will not be allowed to enter the state without the owner holding
an appropriate licence.
5. People who keep certain higher-risk exotic species will have to notify the EPA, or another State Government
department, of any escape or incident within 72 hours. The EPA will work with industry and recreational wildlife groups to develop an agreed response plan to manage the issue of exotic species escaping into the wild.
6. Water buffalo will be placed on the farm wildlife schedule. Water buffalo farming is an emerging industry in Queensland. To farm the buffalo, farmers will have to prove they have strict security measures in place to prevent the animals
escaping. However, as the species poses a conservation risk, it will remain on the prohibited wildlife schedule for all
other purposes.
Administration
Context
The administration of the Regulation involves a wide range of activities, including receipt, assessment and processing of
licences, maintaining records, compliance monitoring and enforcement. Most public submissions relating to the administration of
the Act focused on the issuing of licences and how these processes can be improved.
The EPA has streamlined the handling of environmental licences and permits with the introduction of Ecoaccess, a system
for administering licences and permits. The initiative was implemented in March this year. The aim is to integrate decision-making
to improve environmental outcomes and enhance customer access to information.
Records and returns
Licensees who hold a prescribed class of licence are required to keep and maintain record books. Record books are used to
record changes in wildlife numbers as a result of purchases, sales, breeding, escapes or deaths. They are a transparent
record demonstrating that wildlife was lawfully obtained, as well as a useful information tool for those keeping wildlife.
Returns are also produced and submitted to the EPA. Returns provide a valuable record, particularly for those licensed
activities where take from the wild is authorised. On the other hand, if activities are licensed and there is no commercial
gain associated with the activity, the requirement for both records and returns is rather onerous.
In this case, there is capacity to remove the requirement for licensees to submit returns for certain classes of licence
(e.g. licences authorising the non-commercial keeping and use of wildlife).
For commercial or harvesting licensees, returns are used as a tool to assess the sustainability of the activities being undertaken
and form a valuable record for EPA monitoring. For some lower-risk activities, a reduction in the number and frequency of returns
for certain classes of licences and permits may be appropriate.
In addition, the existing return schedules for many licence classes are based on the calendar year, rather than the licence issue
or expiry date. This complicates the issue and uses up vital EPA resources. There is capacity to rectify this issue to provide a
more streamlined return schedule for licensees.
Enforcement
The existing provisions for administering wildlife offences are restrictive, as they do not provide a sufficient suite of
enforcement tools and responses to adequately address situations encountered by conservation officers on a day-to-day basis.
The Act provides for two legal remedies for people found in breach of the law – prosecution and infringement notices.
Infringement notices can only be issued for some wildlife offences under the Regulation. The absence of
infringement notice penalties for minor wildlife offences under the Act makes it difficult to respond to minor breaches
of legislation. It is not in the public interest, or in the interest of efficient process, to
prosecute people in court who commit minor offences.
Seizing wildlife as part of gathering evidence to prove an offence has occurred may be unwarranted. Physical seizure places stress
on the wildlife and transfers responsibility for maintenance to the EPA. Because the legal process is often protracted, the
State Government may be required to maintain the wildlife for extended periods oftime, which may not be in the best interests
of the wildlife concerned.
The in-situ seizure of wildlife will allow the wildlife to continue to be kept in a familiar situation with continuing care,
but restricts the ability of a person to dispose of or sell the wildlife.
When prosecuting a wildlife offence in the courts, the State Government, rather than the holder of the wildlife, must show
the wildlife has been unlawfully obtained. This is called the "onus of proof". As such, a person can only be charged
with a take offence if the Crown has proof the wildlife was taken unlawfully, or the alleged offender confesses to the crime.
It is often impossible to prove a person has taken wildlife illegally, so many offenders can only be charged with keep or
use offences. However, the penalties for these crimes are not an adequate deterrent. The EPA proposes to partially transfer the
onus of proof in relation to the keeping of wildlife suspected of being taken unlawfully, to the holder of the wildlife.
To address more effective administration, the following recommendations have been made.
Recommendations
1. Abolish returns for licences authorising the non-commercial keeping and use of wildlife (living or dead). Any person taking or harvesting wildlife, or using wildlife commercially, will still be required to submit returns.
2. Allow returns to be submitted on the anniversary of their issue. Where appropriate (i.e. where the take of wildlife is not an issue), the number and frequency of returns will also be reduced.
3. Provide for the non-lodgement of returns as grounds for refusing a licence renewal. This will address an anomaly that enables licences to be renewed despite requirements for returns not being met.
4. Introduce penalty infringement notices for minor breaches. The EPA will continue to explore a range of new enforcement remedies to improve the handling of minor breaches of the Act.
5. Introduce powers for officers to seize wildlife in-situ. This will ensure the best interests of the wildlife concerned are served in the circumstances. Severe penalties will apply for contravention of an in-situ seizure notice.
6. Reverse the onus of proof in relation to "take" for protected wildlife offences. This will apply where
sufficient evidence is available to suspect that wildlife has been unlawfully taken.
7. Obligate licensees to notify the chief executive within 14 days of a change of name, residential or business address. Often renewal notices are returned to the EPA and licensees cannot be contacted because they have changed their contact details. Licences authorise the keeping of wildlife at a particular location
and this change will allow for easier administration of the Act.
Dead wildlife and wildlife parts
Context
The illegal trade in dead wildlife and wildlife parts is of international concern. Where market forces demand products derived
from live animals and plants, they become targets for illegal poaching. In Queensland, some animals, including all species of
marine turtles and crocodiles, are named in the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES),
which is regulated by the Commonwealth to prevent exploitation of wild populations.
For this reason, a person requires a licence, permit or other authority to take, keep or use a protected animal. Protected animals
are all native mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians as well as some butterflies and species of freshwater fish.
The Act provides an exemption from licensing if the wildlife has been classified as a "processed product". Certain items
are classed as processed products based on their origin or the nature of the product
(e.g. meat from a licensed wildlife farm).
Dead wildlife can be a useful resource in some circumstances and there may be some scope for change in this area. For instance,
people with rescue permits or wildlife exhibitors and demonstrators could use dead wildlife (e.g. road kill) as food for sick, injured, orphaned or captive display animals. There have been occasions where those who hold an animal under a licence have sought
to carry out taxidermy on a deceased animal. There are also opportunities for certain items, in particular low unit-value items
such as feathers, to be included as processed products through amendment to the Regulation.
Where its use can be monitored effectively, it may be acceptable to allow the controlled use of dead wildlife. However, it is important that new markets do not develop from an increased availability of a wildlife resource. Therefore, the EPA will only allow the holders of certain classes of licence to take some dead common wildlife.
There is no intention to remove general restrictions to take dead wildlife for all purposes. Items, including those made or derived from a protected animal, will remain protected unless they are defined as a processed product. High profile species such as koalas, platypus and echidna will continue to be restricted from use.
The following recommendations have been made for the use of dead protected wildlife.
Recommendations
1. Conditional exemption to be introduced to allow persons to acquire dead wildlife for certain purposes related to a
permitted activity. The mechanism through which this could be achieved may be a written approval relating to a person’s
activity, a standing approval issued to a person, or a condition included on a licence.
2. Licence restrictions associated with the processing of lawfully taken, kept or used dead wildlife to be amended. The goal of this change will be to relax restrictions on the processing of dead wildlife to be taken, kept or used under the Act.
3. Reclassify some items, including feathers and other low-unit value items, as processed products. Items subject to
Commonwealth CITES obligations will continue to be regulated.
4. Revise the cost of marking or "tagging" items. Tagging processed products is expensive and therefore rarely used.
Revised cost arrangements will facilitate greater use of the tags.
DNA and microchip provisions
Context
DNA technology and microchips are the most reliable methods of identifying wildlife and its parentage. They are highly valuable
compliance-monitoring tools and can be used to detect offences involving expensive and high profile species whose conservation status in the wild
is under threat.
Currently, the Regulation provides that a person who keeps a range of protected wildlife under various classes of wildlife must:
a) ensure a biological tissue sample of the wildlife and its progeny is held and registered with a scientific institution approved by
the Minister; and
b) implant into the wildlife and its progeny an electromagnetic implant approved by the Minister.
For certain classes of licences, the Minister may activate the DNA and microchip provisions of the Regulation. In 2000, the DNA and
microchip provisions were put on hold by the then Environment Minister due to concerns about the risk of injury to wildlife. These
provisions have not been re-activated.
However, advances in microchipping technology have made this method of identification more acceptable. Implant procedures have
improved, reducing the risk of injury to wildlife. DNA profiling technologies are also less invasive than in the past.
Although both microchip and DNA are excellent compliance monitoring tools, the EPA still considers mandatory sampling
unwarranted. Instead, the EPA is proposing to introduce an incentivebased system to encourage clients who hold certain high-profile
species to take and register DNA samples and/or implant microchips. Clients who voluntarily perform this task will pay the standard
licence fee instead of a higher fee to offset compliance monitoring costs.
The EPA also proposes to provide the chief executive with discretionary powers to require a person to implant microchips and/or
register DNA samples in circumstances where there is evidence of illegal taking from the wild.
The following recommendations have been made in relation to the DNA and microchip provisions for some protected wildlife.
Recommendations
1. Continue voluntary DNA and microchip provisions.
2. Introduce a financial incentive system for people who voluntarily DNA and/or microchip certain high-profile This will provide a
two-tiered licence system that maintains current costs for specialist animals that are fitted with DNA/microchips and higher
costs for those that are not and require more stringent compliance monitoring.
3. Provide the chief executive discretionary powers to require people to take and register DNA samples. This will enable the
chief executive to respond to emerging conservation issues where risks become evident as a result of the unlawful take of particular species from the wild.
Wildlife rescue permits
Context
Thousands of injured, sick and orphaned animals are rehabilitated and released back to the wild, thanks to a dedicated network of about
2000 wildlife carers across Queensland, more than half of whom are members of incorporated wildlife care groups.
Carers are increasingly playing a role in recovery programs by handraising threatened species such as bridled nailtail wallabies and
mahogany gliders. They have also proven their ability to work on programs involving the release of wildlife into disturbed and/or
rehabilitated habitat or lands impacted by bushfires.
Significant conservation benefits are also derived from the education, research, environmental appreciation and knowledge that carers
develop and pass to the EPA and broader community.
Wildlife exhibitors also provide a valuable service to the community in wildlife rescue. Most exhibitors hold a rescue permit and are well
equipped to rescue and rehabilitate wildlife.
During this review, the public overwhelmingly supported more intense scrutiny and expansion of the compliance-monitoring
program for rescue permit holders. The intensity of these views was unexpected.
The enforcement of the Code of Practice for Sick, Injured and Orphaned Protected Animals by Wildlife Care Volunteers was
considered a high priority by carers to prevent "hoarding" of wildlife, and to ensure that animal welfare concerns were being addressed
properly. Similarly, concerns were expressed regarding how easy it was to obtain a rescue permit to care for sick, injured and orphaned native wildlife.
The rescue and rehabilitation of protected animals, the administration of the licensing regime and compliance monitoring is resourceintensive. In recent years,
more than 25 incorporated volunteer care groups have emerged in Queensland, providing new levels of professionalism, training and support for carers.
In summary, the review found that there is a need to improve the conservation benefits gained through the rehabilitation of sick,
injured and orphaned wildlife and reduce the administrative burden placed on the EPA and carers.
The 72-hour rule
One issue that came up regularly in the review related to the requirement for people to either obtain a permit, release the animal,
or otherwise deal with the animal in a way a conservation officer directs within 72 hours of that animal coming into care.
It was suggested that the statutory timeframe was insufficient and, by extending this period, a reduced administrative burden on carers and
the EPA could be achieved. On the other hand, some carers have expressed concern that an inexperienced person is unlikely to administer appropriate care and
the 72 hours could influence the recovery of that animal. This was particularly relevant to marine mammals and turtles, many of which are rare and threatened and
require highly specialised care immediately. There is capacity to ensure the quality of care concerns are met and the urgency of the
72-hour rule maintained.
To progress wildlife care in Queensland and reduce the administrative load associated with it, the following recommendations have been made.
Recommendations
1. Carers will need to be accredited or a member of an accredited wildlife care group to be issued a permit.
Individuals will have the option of joining specialist, general or other wildlife-associated groups (e.g. RSPCA, the Wildlife
Preservation Society of Queensland or licensed wildlife exhibitors) who hold a wildlife rehabilitation permit.
Alternatively, individuals can be accredited by meeting guidelines that demonstrate suitable experience and capacity as a
carer. Carers who are members of an accredited group will be covered under its wildlife rehabilitation permit.
This move will provide for better insurance options, more professional operations, mentoring and training. Groups would
play a stronger role in administering the code of practice, working with members to determine standards of care, placement
of animals not suitable for release and animal welfare issues.
2. Progress the establishment of a statewide volunteer wildlife association to co-ordinate carer interests. This will provide a
central co-ordinating body to represent and progress wildlife care interests in Queensland and provide for such activities as
accredited training, wildlife hotlines, ongoing development of the
code of practice and collective group insurances. Incorporated groups will participate in this association. This organisation will
help raise the profile of wildlife care issues, and enable members of the public to access such groups should they encounter injured
fauna.
3. Rewrite the code of practice to better address animal welfare concerns.
4. Appoint a wildlife care representative to the Minister’s Recreational and Commercial Animal Management Advisory
Committee. This will provide input on wildlife care matters direct to the Minister through the formal advisory channels. The
representative will be nominated by the statewide wildlife care organisation.
5. Rename rescue permits to rehabilitation permits. This will more accurately reflect the intention of the activity.
6. Abolish returns for wildlife care. As recommended under the administration section of this review, this will reduce the
administrative burden on carers and EPA officers. However, records will still be encouraged so wildlife carers can directly log
information on the Wildnet database.
7. Obligate a person who rescues a sick, injured or orphaned marine mammal or turtle to immediately inform a
conservation officer. This will ensure immediate action is taken to provide the animal with appropriate care.
8. Exempt wildlife exhibitors involved in rescue and rehabilitating wildlife for release from having to obtain a
rehabilitation permit. A person with a wildlife exhibitor’s licence who undertakes wildlife rescue and rehabilitation will be
subject to the same conditions and restrictions as any other organisation involved in this activity. Exhibitors rescuing wildlife
will be required to submit returns for rescued wildlife as part of their exhibitor returns.
Managing human interactions with wildlife
Context
Populations of many species that were once abundant within their natural range have retracted since human settlement and their demise
in conservation status has placed them on the threatened species list. Unfortunately, such declines continue as a result of human
interactions with wildlife. Changed land uses, clearing of habitat, introduction of non-natives species and the intentional destruction of
wildlife to protect human interests are some of the key factors contributing to this decline.
In contrast, some species of wildlife have thrived on human settlement, becoming overabundant and impacting on human interests
and on other less dominant wildlife. Where an overabundance of animals has arisen from changed land-use practices, like the growing
of food products, landholders seek to lawfully reduce those numbers and protect their crops through damage mitigation.
This review considered whether the current regulations provided adequate safeguards to ensure that less abundant species were not put
under the threat of extinction and that reasonable methods for managing the overabundance of certain wildlife were available.
Damage mitigation
Damage mitigation permits provide a tool to destroy or disturb common protected wildlife where there are serious threats to safety
or economic impacts on people. It is only one method to address such issues and is intended to be a last resort when other methods of
control are either not possible or have failed. While it is recognised that wildlife can provide a significant risk to safety and crop viability,
the management of wildlife in most cases can be best achieved through an integrated property management strategy, incorporating
sustainable wildlife management as a part of a wholistic property management plan. The EPA will continue to work with industry and
land managers towards more sustainable approaches. There is also a greater role for wildlife conservation plans as a
proactive tool for managing overabundant species, including situations in urban areas where large populations of certain wildlife
have become a public nuisance. Another issue raised during the review was the issue of the
importance of ensuring humane methods are used for taking wildlife.
Generally, the only approved methods for lethal take of fauna involve shooting and poisoning in limited circumstances. Animals are also
trapped for relocation. To ensure these animals are destroyed humanely, the Minister’s Macropod Management Advisory Committee has recommended that
all shooters, commercial, recreational and individuals carrying out authorised damage mitigation activities, comply with the national
Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Macropods. Currently, people wishing to obtain a commercial wildlife harvesting licence for
macropods must comply with this code. Under current legislation, wildlife taken under a damage mitigation
permit cannot be used for trade or commerce. During the review, some people argued that wildlife taken in damage mitigation
situations should not go to waste. Others indicated issues arising from such use, including the risks associated with wild-caught
animals spreading disease to captive stocks or being translocated outside their natural range. There was also concern about the welfare
of wild-caught animals in adapting to captive situations, the potential for damage mitigation to be abused in order to obtain wildlife and the
difficulties in monitoring of compliance to ensure that species that
are "harvested" under damage mitigation permits are lawfully taken.
It was also suggested that many species taken under damage mitigation permits are generally common wildlife which breed well
in captivity and harvesting for trade will not make a significant contribution to captive husbandry of the species.
Because of the complexity of these issues and community concern about the use of wildlife taken under damage mitigation permits, no
changes are proposed at this time. There may be opportunities in the future to more widely consider the conservation benefits of
sustainable uses of native wildlife for commercial and/or recreational purposes, rather than killing by damage mitigation.
Feeding wildlife
A significant issue raised during the review was the incidence of large-scale feeding of wildlife. Generally, these issues relate to the
feeding of wildlife on a commercial scale, or large-scale feeding by individual residents. These issues are different from those relating to
residents supplementing the food of wildlife in their backyards.
Concerns were expressed about increased densities of wildlife,stronger wildlife driving less dominant wildlife away, health and
safety issues, lack of hygiene, impacts on adjacent properties and the welfare of the animals concerned.
In Queensland, a wide range of commercial interests are increasingly using the feeding of wildlife as an eco-tourism marketing tool and
often undertake activities which attract large numbers of wildlife to an area. This practice constitutes a commercial use of wildlife and
has implications for both wildlife conservation and human-wildlife conflict.
It is not considered desirable to prevent feeding altogether, however, a policy position has been adopted that if feeding is to continue, it
must be done with regard to the best interests of the wildlife, clients and adjoining landholders.
The incidence and frequency of complaints to the EPA regarding inappropriate feeding of wildlife are rising. For example, some
commercial operators feed marine turtles. The availability of food attracts these turtles to vessels in unnatural congregations and the
potential for boat-strike and injury to the animals is a concern.
Any feeding of wildlife must be conducted with regard to providing a correct diet for the wildlife, the potential for disease transfer through
large gatherings of animals, hygiene, human safety and the impacts of the activity on adjoining land-holders.
To manage this issue more effectively, a regulatory framework has been proposed to ensure the environmental, safety and amenity impacts of commercial feeding of wildlife are considered and the private commercial benefit derived from the use of wild fauna is recognised.
Action taken to prevent harm to wildlife
The review examined options for regulating activities that will be likely to affect the conservation of native species where an action, or
failure to undertake an action, is likely to have significant impacts on wildlife conservation or human safety.
Generally, wildlife is opportunistic and will take advantage of favourable environmental conditions. Where these conditions are
produced through human behaviour, populations may surge, and as a result there is an increase in human-wildlife conflict. Where these
situations are avoidable, it is in the best interests of wildlife and the broader community to address the primary cause of the problem. One
remedy being considered is to introduce a regulatory provision enabling the chief executive to require a person to undertake, or
cease, an activity which has implications for wildlife populations.
Where small-scale urban wildlife feeding is causing a nuisance or environmental or public health concern to the general community, the
EPA will continue to liaise with local governments to address these situations through local management options.
The following recommendations have been made to address the management of human-wildlife interactions.
Recommendations
1. Introduce a new condition to damage mitigation permits for the take of macropods to comply with the Code of Practice for
the Humane Shooting of Macropods. This will require that macropods taken for damage mitigation purposes are taken humanely.
2. Introduce a framework to manage the commercial feeding of wildlife. This will ensure the best interests of the wildlife are
protected. For those licensed institutions currently feeding wildlife (i.e. wildlife exhibitors), these requirements will be
covered in their existing licence, removing the need for multiple licences.
3. Introduce a provision enabling the chief executive to obligate a person to take action (or cease an action) relating to wildlife
that may have implications for the conservation of native populations or public safety.
4. Develop a conservation and management plan for problem wildlife. This will proactively manage issues arising from
overabundant wildlife creating a public nuisance in urban areas.
Other proposed changes
The majority of changes discussed in this paper will be made in the Regulation. However, some aspects will need to be complemented by
changes to the Act. The process of amending the Act is complex and it may be necessary to stage the implementation of some of the recommendations.
Other minor reforms are proposed to correct the operation of the Regulation, to correct minor errors and omissions and to clarify
aspects of the Regulation where the intent of the section is not clear.
Conclusion
The State Government recognises that Queenslanders appreciate native wildlife in a variety of ways. The objective of this discussion
paper is to develop policies that respect an individual’s right to enjoy wildlife while conserving it for generations to come.
The recommendations arising from this review aim to achieve this balance and, at the same time, streamline the administration and
reporting requirements of the legislation and emphasise a greater focus on issues posing a risk to conservation.
As this discussion paper is a blueprint for future policies, this is an opportunity for all citizens to contribute to wildlife management in
Queensland.
Your comments on the proposals in this discussion paper are welcome.
Submissions
Your submissions can be sent to us at:
Wildlife Management Review
PO Box 155
Brisbane Albert Street QLD 4002
Or e-mail to
regulation.review@epa.qld.gov.au
All envelopes should be marked with reference number BNE 1668.
Birds to be added on the Domestic Animals list.
Acridotheres tristis Common myna
Alauda arvensis Skylark
Alectoris chukar Chukar
Alectoris graeca Rock partridge
Alisterus amboinensis Moluccan king-parrot
Amazona aestiva Blue-fronted parrot
Amazona albifrons White-fronted parrot
Amazona amazonica Orange-winged parrot
Amazona autumnalis Red-lored parrot
Amazona finschi Lilac-crowned parrot
Amazona leucocephala Cuban parrot
Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned parrot
Amazona viridigenalis Red-crowned parrot
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard and all strains of domestic duck
Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Hyacinth macaw
Anser anser Greylag goose
Apteryx australis Brown kiwi
Ara ambigua Great green macaw
Ara auricollis Yellow-collared macaw
Ara manilata Red-bellied macaw
Ara maracana Blue-winged macaw
Ara militaris Military macaw
Ara nobilis Red-shouldered macaw
Ara rubrogenys Red-fronted macaw
Ara severa Chestnut-fronted macaw
Aratinga acuticaudata Blue-crowned parakeet
Aratinga auricapilla Golden-capped parakeet
Aratinga guarouba Golden parakeet
Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed parakeet
Bolborhynchus lineola Barred parakeet
Cacatua alba White cockatoo
Cacatua moluccensis Salmon-crested cockatoo
Cairina moschata Muscovy duck
Carduelis cannabina Eurasian linnet
Carduelis flammea Common redpoll
Carduelis magellanica Hooded siskin
Carduelis notata Black-headed siskin
Carduelis sinica Grey-capped greenfinch
Carduelis spinoides Yellow-breasted greenfinch
Carduelis uropygialis Yellow-rumped siskin
Chalcopsitta atra Black lory
Chalcopsitta cardinalis Cardinal lory
Columbina talpacoti Ruddy ground dove
Copsychus saularis Oriental magpie-robin
Coryphospingus cucullatus Red-crested finch
Coturnix coturnix Common quail
Coturnix japonica Japanese quail
Cyanoliseus patagonus Burrowing parakeet
Cyanoramphus auriceps Yellow-fronted parakeet
Deroptyus accipitrinus Red-fan parrot
Eos bornea Red lory
Eos cyanogenia Black-winged lory
Eos histrio Red-and-blue lory
Eos reticulata Blue-streaked lory
Eos squamata Violet-necked lory
Erythrura cyaneovirens Red-headed parrotfinch
Erythrura prasina Pin-tailed parrotfinch
Erythrura psittacea Red-throated parrotfinch
Erythrura tricolor Tricolored parrotfinch
Euplectes afer Yellow-crowned bishop
Euplectes axillaris Fan tailed widowbird
Euplectes orix Red bishop
Euschistospiza dybowskii Dybowskis twinspot
Forpus coelestis Pacific parrotlet
Foudia madagascariensis Madagascar red fody
Goura victoria Victoria crowned-pigeon
Leiothrix argentauris Silver-eared mesia
Lonchura leucogastroides Javan munia
Lophura diardi Siamese fireback
Loriculus galgulus Blue-crowned hanging-parrot
Lorius chlorocercus Yellow-bibbed lory
Lorius domicella Purple-naped lory
Lorius garrulus Chattering lory
Lorius lory Black-capped lory
Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey
Mitu tuberosa Razor-billed curassow
Neopsittacus musschenbroekii Yellow-billed lorikeet
Numida meleagris Helmeted guineafowl
Passer domesticus House sparrow
Passer flaveolus Plain-backed sparrow
Passer luteus Sudan golden-sparrow
Phoenicopterus chilensis Chilean flamingo
Phoenicopterus ruber Greater flamingo
Pionites leucogaster White-bellied parrot
Pionites melanocephala Black-headed parrot
Poicephalus gulielmi Red-fronted parrot
Poicephalus meyeri Meyer's parrot
Poicephalus rufiventris Red-bellied parrot
Poicephalus senegalus Senegal parrot
Pseudeos fuscata Dusky lory
Psittacula alexandri Red-breasted parakeet
Psittacula himalayana Slaty-headed parakeet
Psittacula roseata Blossom-headed parakeet
Psitteuteles goldiei Goldies lorikeet
Pyrrhura cruentata Blue-throated parakeet
Pyrrhura egregia Fiery-shouldered parakeet
Pyrrhura frontalis Maroon-bellied parakeet
Pyrrhura leucotis White-eared parakeet
Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed conure
Pyrrhura molinae Green-cheeked parakeet
Pyrrhura picta Painted parakeet
Pyrrhura rupicola Black-capped parakeet
Pytilia hypogrammica Red-faced pytilia
Rhea americana Greater rhea
Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha Thick-billed parrot
Serinus atrogularis Black-throated canary
Serinus dorsostriatus White-bellied canary
Serinus flaviventris Yellow canary
Serinus serinus European serin
Serinus xanthopygius Abyssinian yellow-rumped seedeater
Trichoglossus euteles Olive-headed lorikeet
Trichoglossus johnstoniae Mindanao lorikeet
Trichoglossus ornatus Ornate lorikeet
Vidua macroura Pin tailed whydah
Vidua paradisaea Paradise whydah
Vultur gryphus Andean condor
Birds to be added to the Prohibited Wildlife list
Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer
Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch
Passer montanus Eurasian tree sparrow
Trichoglossus haematodus (other than the Australian spp.) Rainbow lorikeet (other than the Australian spp.)
Back to the menu
