1

Chapter  in:  Conservation  in  a  Crowded  World:  Case  studies  from  the  Asia-­‐Pacific.  Merson,  J.,  Cooney,  R.  and  Brown,  P.  (Eds.)  Published  by  UNSW  Press,  Sydney.  ISBN  9781742233451.  p.256-­‐276.     Cats or quolls? - Australian native mammals as pets

Rosalie Chapple1, Rosie Cooney1, Sarah Doornbos1 and Stephen Jackson2 1

Introduction Australia’s biodiversity is in crisis, and the conservation effort to date is failing to stem the tide of extinctions. Australia has the worst record of mammal extinctions in the world, with 24 mammals becoming extinct in the 200 or so years since European settlement (Lindenmayer 2007, Van Dyck & Strahan 2008). Threats include habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, and climate change (Lindenmayer 2007, Cork et al. 2006). Mainstream conservation responses emphasise setting aside protected areas for conservation and regulating potentially damaging activities. However, despite the ongoing efforts of this traditional “fences and fines” approach, Australian biodiversity remains unambiguously in decline (Pressey and Bottrill 2008, Morton et al. 2009). This biodiversity crisis urgently demands consideration of innovative alternatives. Sustainable use of and trade in native wildlife (including on a commercial basis) has often been discussed and used as a tool for conservation (e.g. Webb 2002, Hutton and Leader-Williams 2003, Rosser et al. 2005, Lindsey et al. 2007), and has received international support from intergovernmental and non-governmental policy (IUCN 2000, CBD 2004). While it has been most commonly applied in less-developed countries, there are some notable examples in Australia (e.g. Webb and Manolis 1993; and see Ampt and Baumber (Chapter 11) in this volume). Use of wildlife can be either detrimental or beneficial to wildlife conservation, and a key area of interest for researchers and practitioners is under what conditions ‘use’ leads to good conservation outcomes for those species and their associated ecosystems. Indeed, the question “Under what conditions is trade in captive or wild-harvested species beneficial for wild populations of the traded species?” was recently identified as among the 100 most important questions for the future of conservation practice and policy (Sutherland et al. 2009). Despite international acknowledgement of the potential conservation benefits of commercial use of wildlife, the regulation of wildlife use and trade in Australia significantly limits opportunities for the application of this approach (Tucker 2008, Cooney 2009).

Use  of  native  mammals  as  pets  in  Australia  

Serious threats to the survival of native mammals in the wild in Australia have prompted the proposition that more widespread trade and keeping of native 1 1 Institute of Environmental Studies, Vallentine Annexe, University of New South Wales, Australia 2 PO Box 2313, Orange NSW Australia

2

mammals in private hands (see Box 1) could contribute to conservation (Archer 2000, Hopwood 2002, Archer and Beale 2004). This should be understood against the backdrop that in situ conservation of wildlife (conservation in the natural environment) is always preferable. However, where in situ conservation alone is clearly failing, supplementary ex situ approaches need to be explored.

Box  1.  Pet-­‐keeping  versus  animal-­‐keeping  

There is a clear distinction between traditional notions of “pet-keeping” for companionship and pleasure (i.e. keeping an animal that comes when it is called, moves freely around the house or garden, jumps onto its owner’s lap and is petted and stroked) and “animal-keeping” for interest and study (i.e. keeping an animal in conditions seeking to emulate a wild state, which might involve keeping animals enclosed in aviaries or runs and providing specialised habitat requirements). While many native species may be suitable for keeping, some may not be suitable for keeping in the sense of a traditional pet but may be appropriate for keeping under the “animal-keeping” model. Currently, most private keeping of native mammals falls into the “animal-keeping” category rather than the traditional “pet” category. However, for the sake of brevity, this chapter uses the term “pets” and “pet-keeping” as “catch-all” terms to encompass the spectrum of private keeping of animals by individuals for reasons such as companionship, enthusiasm, interest, recreation and amateur study. Traditional pets such as cats and dogs have undergone a long history of domestication, and of selective breeding for attributes favourable to being kept by humans, such as docility and ease of handling. Native mammals have not, and current keeping of native mammals does not involve conscious selection for such attributes. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated, discussion of pet keeping in this paper does not necessarily imply any process of domestication. Regulation of the keeping, breeding and trade of native pets in Australia is carried out by state and territory conservation and environment departments through licensing and permitting systems, and varies greatly between jurisdictions. While the keeping of native reptiles, birds and amphibians as pets is reasonably well established across Australia, the keeping and trade of all or the great majority of native mammals by private keepers is currently prohibited in most states and territories. In those states where keeping of all or many native mammals is permitted (South Australia, the Northern Territory and Victoria), many native Australian mammal species have been kept privately and some of these could be considered more broadly for private keeping. These include carnivorous marsupials such as quolls, phascogales and antechinus; bandicoots and bilbies; possums and gliders; bettongs; and native rodents such as hopping mice and rats. The idea of expanding the native mammal pet industry has been controversial on a number of grounds, primarily concerning both conservation and animal welfare outcomes. To date, the debate in Australia about the trade and

3

keeping of native animals as pets in general, and native mammals in particular, has often been rather polemical in tone, with virtually no detailed examination of the likely impacts and feasibility of such an approach, including under realistic scenarios of regulation and industry structure. We carried out a detailed feasibility report examining the implications of expanded keeping of native mammals as pets, addressing the conservation and animal welfare implications, industry feasibility, and models for regulation (Cooney et al. 2010). This report focused on two focal animals: the eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus), a carnivorous marsupial (see Fig 1), and the Mitchell’s hopping mouse (Notomys mitchellii), a native rodent. In this chapter we present and discuss key findings from this report. We first address the issue of species suitability with respect to our focal species, and go on to discuss the various potential conservation and animal welfare benefits and risks involved in expanded mammal keeping. We then discuss the feasibility of this idea from an industry perspective, and present models for regulation. The chapter concludes by summarising the key issues that this initiative raises and makes recommendations for the way ahead.

Fig 1. Eastern quoll (Dasyurus viverrinus), the key species assessed in this study. Photo: S. Jackson.

Which  species?  

Clearly, the animal welfare implications of keeping native mammals as pets will depend heavily on which species are kept. We consider it fundamental that only species suitable for private keeping are kept as pets. We systematically assessed our two focal animals, the eastern quoll and the Mitchell’s hopping mouse, for their suitability. Our criteria included their husbandry, behavioural, social and veterinary requirements and whether

4

these could be readily met, their adaptability to captivity, public health aspects such as aggression and disease transmission, and practical aspects such as lifespan and potential cost. Both species were found to be in principle suitable for private keeping, although we proposed that keeping quolls should require demonstration of adequate experience and knowledge of husbandry requirements. There are a wide range of other native mammals kept privately in the jurisdictions that allow it, such as some gliders, possums, small macropods and phascogales (see Fig 2) – many more of these may be likewise suitable for keeping.

The  conservation  and  animal  welfare  implications  of  native  mammal  keeping  

We identified and assessed a range of potential conservation benefits from expanding the keeping of native mammals as pets, and a range of potential conservation and animal welfare risks. The list of issues raised is probably not exhaustive, but it does represent the major issues raised in debate. Identification of these risks and benefits was based on a literature review, our own analysis, and extensive consultations with a range of stakeholders. The diverse range of stakeholder perspectives active in debate on native pets is presented in Box 2.

Fig 2: Northern Territory keeper Carlia Miles with northern brush-tailed phascogale Phascogale pirata. All mammals can be kept by licensed keepers in NT. Photo: G. Miles.

5

Box  2.  Stakeholders  in  the  native  pet  debate  

The debate and policy discussion on native mammal keeping is framed by a diverse range of stakeholders with varied and often-conflicting values and perspectives. Government regulatory agencies The relevant role of these agencies includes biodiversity conservation generally and regulation of the keeping of native animals as pets specifically. While a range of views is expressed, regulators in particular are often resistant to more widespread keeping of native pets. This may be partly due to their need for adequate resourcing to effectively manage licensing, monitoring compliance, and enforcement. Pet industry The peak body for the pet industry is the Pet Industry Association of Australia (PIAA), which believes that “owning pets is good for your health and good for society”, a view that extends to native pets1. The pet industry supports more widespread keeping of native pets.

Animal welfare organisations These organisations aim to prevent cruelty to animals. The peak non-government body the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is opposed to the keeping of native animals as pets or companions on the basis of difficulty in adequately providing for their needs.

Animal rights and liberation organisations This movement includes the lead groups Animal Liberation Australia and Animals Australia, and focuses on the ethical or ideological basis of pet-keeping. They argue that humans have no right to disrupt, affect, or harm animals in order to meet society’s needs, values or desires, and are strongly opposed to native animal keeping.

Conservationists and ecologists This group is primarily concerned with the conservation of biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and engages with native pet keeping in terms of its potential impacts on this, with varied perspectives.

Native mammal breeders, carers and keepers This group includes wildlife sanctuaries and enthusiast native animal-keepers, and has varied perspectives. The Marsupial Society of Australia actively encourages private keeping and breeding of marsupials in captivity but not as traditional ‘pets’. Among organisations devoted to wildlife rescue and rehabilitation, keeping native animals as pets tends to be controversial.

Aboriginal people Aboriginal cultures are closely connected to native animals and may be concerned about how these animals are kept or used. Perspectives on keeping native mammals as pets vary. The Australian Alliance for Native Animal Survival Inc has been recently established and may provide a vehicle for more formal engagement with such matters.

Veterinarians The concern of veterinarians is primarily with animal health, welfare and wellbeing. As the key representative body of vets in Australia, the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) policy supports the keeping of native animals as pets by private individuals only where it is legally permitted. AVA membership is broad with a diversity of opinions.

6

Why  expand  keeping  of  native  mammals?  Conservation  arguments  in  favour  

Reducing  the  keeping  of  exotic  mammals  as  pets  The simplest conservation rationale for allowing and expanding the keeping of native mammals as pets is that they may displace a proportion of current non-native pets. More native mammal keeping can translate into less exotic predator keeping. Cat and dog owners may be more inclined to switch to a native pet if mammals were available for keeping, as reptiles and birds are not likely to be seen as a potential substitute for dog/cat owners. Native mammal pets are considerably less harmful to wildlife than cats and dogs. Feral cats in particular are highly destructive invasive pests, and domestic cats are both effective predators of native wildlife and readily and regularly become feral (see e.g. Dickman 1996, 2009). Any such replacement is likely to be at a small scale, especially in the short-term, and the proportion of native mammals kept as pets would be unlikely to translate in any linear way to a proportional reduction in feral cat/dog populations. Nevertheless, we view this effect as potentially important in certain contexts. For instance, in ecologically sensitive residential areas, such as those adjoining bushland, native mammals could provide a viable alternative mammal pet, and make residents more likely to voluntary avoid keeping dogs/cat or accept restrictions on cat and/or dog ownership. Such restrictions are used by local councils in many areas, but often face considerable opposition.

Increasing  public  awareness    One of the most potentially important effects of expanded keeping of native mammals is also the most long-term and indirect. More widespread keeping of native mammals by the public could raise awareness of the very existence of these animals, enhance people’s sense of connection to and love for wildlife and nature, and stimulate concern for conservation. Public awareness of native wildlife in Australia is very low, particularly for uncommon threatened species rather than the familiar (and common) kangaroos, koala or kookaburras (Archer and Beale 2004; Tisdell and Wilson 2004; Wilson and Tisdell 2005). Where people are unfamiliar with native wildlife, they are unlikely to be motivated to conserve it. Encouraging a sense of connection between people and wildlife is widely recognised as a critical element in motivating public interest in and support for conservation (Tisdell and Wilson 2004; Wilson and Tisdell 2005; Butler 1992; Parker 2008). There are good models in existence illustrating involvement of animal keepers in the conservation of the kept animals and their habitats. The World Parrot Trust, for instance, is a UK-based organisation of aviculturists and parrot enthusiasts, who have successfully raised large amounts of money to operate on-the-ground field programs for parrot conservation in many countries (World Parrot Trust 2009).

Safeguarding  and  expanding  populations  of  species  of  conservation  concern  Breeding and maintaining native species for keeping as pets could contribute to the maintenance, security and genetic health of populations of species of conservation concern. Simply having more individuals of a threatened

7

species, and more populations of a threatened species, in a variety of locations, is potentially important in maintaining population persistence and genetic diversity. For example, eastern quolls are extinct on the Australian mainland, while the future of the remaining Tasmanian population is increasingly insecure after the apparent introduction of foxes to the island. There is only one captive breeding population of the species in Australia (at Secret Creek, Lithgow, NSW). More populations and larger numbers in captivity would boost species survival prospects should the wild population decline. Captive populations bred for the pet industry could also serve as ‘reservoir’ populations to reintroduce species to natural habitats if the primary causes of decline have been addressed (e.g. habitat loss and introduced predators). Examples exist in Australia where populations of native animals kept by private keepers have maintained the species in the face of extinction in the wild. The Lake Eacham rainbow fish Melanotaenia eachamensis (Barlow et al. 1987; Low 2002), for example, became extinct in the wild in its only indigenous lake in Queensland after introduction of an exotic fish. However, stocks collected by aquarium enthusiasts have formed the basis for reintroduction efforts after elimination of the invader. However, to contribute to these potential benefits, breeding of threatened species in particular would require careful genetic management of the breeding stock to maintain wild-type genetics, avoiding inbreeding, maintaining genetic diversity, and avoiding the selective breeding for unusual or exaggerated characteristics (such colours or size) that often takes place when species are bred for the pet market.

Increasing  knowledge  of  native  mammal  husbandry  and  ecology    Private animal keepers often make significant contributions to understanding of the husbandry and biology of the species kept (e.g. Archer 2000; Hopwood 2002; Archer and Beale 2004; Mattioli et al. 2006). For instance, the curious second penile structure of the western quoll Dasyurus geoffroii was discovered by a private keeper observing his quoll asleep in his sock drawer, and had not been previously detected in zoo or museum specimens (M. Archer, pers. comm.). More widespread native pet keeping could contribute to conservation through increasing the relevant knowledge base, as long as information accrued through private breeding and keeping was appropriately published or disseminated to make it available to conservation managers. An increased understanding of native animal ecology, particularly threatened species, is important in the development of conservation strategies that may include captive breeding.

Raising  revenue  for  conservation  A native pet industry could potentially generate funding for the conservation of threatened species and their habitats. Funds to support relevant conservation, research or education programs could be generated through a government levy exacted on the native pet industry, which is returned to conservation or research projects. Such levies (generally supporting research) are currently in place for a number of Australian industries. This could provide a long-term source of conservation funding targeting the species traded, potentially supporting efforts to reintroduce those that are extinct in the wild back into their native habitats. Such reintroduction efforts are particularly arduous and expensive in Australia, where mammal reintroduction typically relies on

8

exclusion and ongoing management of feral predators and competitors. Further, a native pet industry could provide a source of revenue for conservation-oriented organisations involved in captive breeding of the species, allowing them to raise revenue for conservation projects by selling a proportion of offspring bred or offspring of particular species. In breeding of eastern quoll, for example, there are typically a larger number of males produced each year than are required to maintain the breeding stock (T. Evans, pers. comm.). Sale of these animals would have no impact on captive population growth but could raise revenue for breeding. If captive breeding became economically attractive through an expanded native mammal pet industry, this could drive investments in captive breeding that under some conditions could benefit conservation. Where animals for the pet trade derive from wild harvesting (generally likely to be rare), such trading could provide both funding and incentives for conservation of the wild population and of other species and habitats. For example, in the Maningrida area of Arnhem Land, Northern Territory the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation, a community development body, harvests the eggs of long-necked turtles Chelodina rugosa to rear in captivity and sell juveniles into the pet market. Funds generated are used directly to support projects associated with land management and turtle conservation (Fordham et al. 2008), such as culling wild pigs and fencing them out of the billabongs during dry seasons, with conservation benefits for turtles and riparian ecosystems generally.

Why  not  keep  native  pets?  The  potential  risks  

Set against these potential conservation benefits are a number of risks related to both conservation and welfare of kept animals.

Animal  welfare  concerns  The welfare of native mammals kept as pets could be compromised if animals’ needs in terms of suitable housing, diet, health care, behavioural stimulation and social life are not met (Viggers and Lindenmayer 2002, Johnson 2006, DECC 2008). Some native mammals have highly specialised needs (including a heightened stress response associated with wild-living (Chapple et al. 1991)), which would be difficult for untrained keepers to meet in a typical suburban environment, and the general level of veterinary knowledge concerning diseases and requirements of native wildlife is currently much less than for traditional pets (Jackson 2003, Viggers and Lindenmayer 2002). Much depends, as mentioned above, on the choice of species for keeping – there appears to be a variety of native mammals whose needs can be readily met by private keepers. Abandonment of pet animals is a further welfare risk, as it is with all domestic pets. For instance, in Australia the RSPCA currently takes in approximately 160,000 dogs annually because they are lost, homeless or abandoned (RSPCA 2010). Rescue organisations, animal welfare advocates and animal trainers link this problem to pet shops, impulse purchases and mass-breeding practices for profit (NSW Parliament 2008).

9

Impacting  wild  populations  through  escape  or  release  Keeping of native mammals as pets carries a risk of accidental or deliberate release of these animals. Such releases could be potentially harmful for native wildlife in a variety of ways. Pets escaping into areas outside of their native range could impact on local native biodiversity through competition for resources. For instance, rainbow lorikeets Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus from eastern/south-eastern Australia have become established around Perth, in Western Australia due to aviary escapes. They now compete for potential nest sites and feeding sources, as well as kill nestlings, of local birds such as the Australian ringneck Barnardius (Chapman 2005). There are further potential impacts. Disease could be transmitted to wild individuals of the same or similar species. Wild gene pools of the same or closely related species could be disrupted through breeding of escaped pets with individuals from wild populations. A particular genetic impact on wild populations could arise where interbreeding occurs between wild individuals and escaped pets from captive populations that have been the subject of directional selection for particular “unnatural” characteristics such as exaggerated or unusual body size or colour, or for “domestic” attributes such as docility, ease of handling, and lack of fear of humans. Particularly for species of high conservation concern, maintaining the wild-type genetics in populations bred for pets is therefore extremely important. In considering the effects of escaped or released native pets on wildlife, however, it must be kept in mind that these threats should be assessed relative to those posed by exotic species currently kept as pets, which are likely to be much greater than the risks discussed here.

Illegal  take  from  the  wild    It is possible that poaching from wild populations could be stimulated by increased demand for native mammals as pets. However, if animals are more readily and cheaply available from captive bred than from illegal sources, incentives for buyers to purchase illegally sourced animals are likely to be low, reducing the incentive to poach. It is also likely that many mammals would require hand-rearing in order to make suitable pets, decreasing the returns from poaching. The risk of international trade of native mammals is lower than for birds and reptiles, which can be smuggled as eggs2. However, poaching and illegal domestic and international trade remain a substantive potential risk.

Potential  measures  to  optimise  conservation  and  animal  welfare  outcomes    

A range of regulatory, educational, and industry structural measures could be used to address these conservation and animal welfare issues – minimising risks while boosting potential conservation gains. Here we outline a set of recommended measures.

2 All international commercial trade of native Australian animals is currently illegal under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

10

Safeguarding  the  genetic  integrity  of  wild  populations    

For species of particular conservation concern, breeding could be restricted to licensed breeders who can demonstrate appropriate skills and expertise, with mandatory de-sexing of animals in private keeping. This would ensure that conservation-focused management of captive colonies is not undermined by poorly coordinated or commercially-driven breeding, and that all breeding is appropriate to maintain wild-type genetics. It would also vastly reduce the potential for escape/releases to impact on wild populations, as individual escapees could not breed with wild populations or establish feral populations. Coordinated and science-based genetic management of captive populations of species of conservation concern is important to enable conservation of the wild genotype, maintenance of genetic health (e.g. avoiding inbreeding or out-breeding depression), and avoidance of directional selection in response to commercial pressures (e.g. for unusual characteristics, colour morphs, size or docility). This could be enabled through engaging the involvement of the Australian Species Management Program of the Zoo and Aquarium Association.

Effective  monitoring  and  enforcement    

Especially in relation to welfare and genetic management, effective monitoring and enforcement will be important. As part of this, a permanent identification (e.g. micro-chipping) registration and record-keeping scheme could be established for certain species, particularly those of high value and/or of high conservation concern. This would allow better identification of animals that escape or are released and enable keepers to be held accountable for offences relating to animals. Such a system would also provide a greater ability to verify the origins of animals, so would assist in controlling illegal harvest/trade and enable better detection of potentially problematic trends. Currently, the regulatory framework is under-resourced to adequately monitor and enforce regulations, so it would be important that with any growth in the industry, there is a concomitant increase in funding for government enforcement.

Promoting  good  animal  welfare  standards  

A range of measures could contribute to safeguarding animal welfare standards. Licensing requirements can restrict the keeping and/or breeding of Australian mammals to those who can demonstrate awareness of appropriate husbandry and animal welfare requirements, and can involve different licences (e.g. basic versus specialist) for species requiring different levels of skill and expertise. Species not requiring specialist care (provided they are also of low conservation concern) could potentially be made free from licensing requirements to reduce the administrative burden on government environment agencies. Such exemptions from licensing currently exist in all states for a variety of species of Australian birds and are proposed for reptiles in the state of New South Wales. In addition, development of appropriate codes of practice for keeping native mammals in all jurisdictions that allow their keeping could contribute

11

significantly to ensuring wide understanding and consideration of animal welfare and husbandry requirements among keepers. Such codes of practice are commonly in place for the keeping of birds and reptiles in captivity and for animals in pet shops. There is currently no code of practice in use by any state government or non-government organisation that specifically covers the keeping or retail of native mammals. The Bureau of Animal Welfare of the Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, is currently developing a Code of Practice for the Private Keeping of Australian Mammals. Purchase of animals direct from breeders is likely to deliver better animal welfare outcomes than sale through pet stores, which can encourage impulse purchases by unsuitable animal keepers who subsequently abandon the animal (NSW Parliament 2008). However, pet shops could play an important role in supporting good husbandry through providing equipment, supplies and educational material including information about the opportunity to keep native mammals as pets, and their husbandry requirements.

Raising  funds  and  public  awareness  

Appropriate measures could be taken so that keeping and trade in native wildlife contributed directly (financially) and indirectly (through raising public awareness) to conservation of species and habitats. A conservation levy on breeders/traders or a conservation charge on keepers, discussed above, would raise funding to be returned to appropriate conservation projects. Expanded keeping could be accompanied by education and awareness opportunities: for example, breeders could be required to educate prospective keepers and distribute approved educational material with their animals. Keepers could join a “Conservation Keepers” community that shared information about their animals, organised activities and provided education on husbandry.

Industry  feasibility  and  practical  challenges  

The practical feasibility of an expanded industry based on native mammals as pets, in a manner that supports sound conservation and animal welfare outcomes, is affected by a number of factors including regulation, financial viability and public demand, and public perceptions and attitudes. The regulatory environment for native mammals as pets is complex and may be resistant to change. Expansion of native mammal keeping would require legislative or policy change in most states and territories to relax the current restrictions. This would require significant political will, particularly as such a relaxation would likely be opposed by some regulators as well as animal rights and welfare groups. The lack of standardisation or coordination across the states and territories of Australia poses further challenges of complexity and uncertainty for trade between jurisdictions. Finally and perhaps most fundamentally, regulation of the keeping of native mammals as pets challenges the divide between conservation and commercial activity that is inherent in current models of wildlife regulation and in the thinking of most regulators and conservationists (Cooney 2008, Cooney and Edwards 2009). The current regulatory apparatus is focused on conservation, which may not

12

be suitable for regulation of a commercial industry, albeit one that has conservation as a fundamental goal. An important success factor for a native pet industry will be to ensure that the regulatory burden is closely geared toward conservation needs but is not excessive. Financial viability of a native mammal pet industry would be highly dependent on the existence of sufficient market demand. Insufficient market demand may result in the strategy being unable to deliver conservation benefits through revenue raising, public awareness or replacing exotic pets. Australia has been found to have the highest rate of pet ownership in the world, with dogs and cats remaining among the most popular (BIS Shrapnel 2006). The private keeping of native animals in Australia is relatively new and quite limited, with native mammals greatly underrepresented compared to birds and reptiles. Given the popularity of mammals as pets generally, it appears likely that the restrictive nature of the licensing regime for native mammals as pets is responsible for the low numbers of native mammals kept, and that there would be considerable interest in more widespread mammal keeping should it be allowed. In South Australia and Victoria, where regulations for native mammal keeping are relatively permissive, the number of mammals kept clearly demonstrates a significant level of interest. Public demand will be further influenced by the cost of acquiring and keeping native mammals. For most native mammals, costs associated with their care, including pet food, various pet products and services such as veterinary care, would be comparable with pets in general. However, the retail price of native animals, along with licensing costs and a potential conservation charge, may be a significant factor influencing their popularity for keeping. As for all pet animals, retail prices are heavily influenced by the dynamics of supply and demand. Figures obtained from the Marsupial Society of Australia (A. Yarde pers. comm. 2009) indicate that the native mammals kept in several states can be purchased for prices ranging from $60 for a pair of spinifex hopping mice (Notomys alexis), and up to $1000 for other species (e.g. dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) $175, sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) $300, tammar wallaby (Macropus eugenii) $350, brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) $400 and wombat (Vombatus ursinus) $1000). Species currently not widely available, but potentially suitable as pets, are more expensive, with a breeder estimating that the market price for an eastern quoll may need to be as high as $3000 per individual (T. Evans pers. comm. 2010). In an expanded industry where suitable species would be bred on a larger scale, prices are likely to drop significantly and more closely reflect production costs, which is what has been experienced within the bird and reptile industries. Licence fees may be significant, as some of the public sector costs associated with a native mammal pet industry, including cost of administering the license system, monitoring and enforcement, will be expected to be carried at least in part by the industry through license fees. Public demand is also likely to be affected by public health concerns and unfamiliarity with the species, particularly in the early stages of industry development.

13

Finally, a native mammal pet industry will be susceptible to public perceptions and attitudes. Animal welfare and animal rights groups such as the RSPCA and Animal Liberation (respectively) do not support the keeping of native wildlife as pets (Parliamentary Senate Inquiry 1998; RSPCA 2010b; M Pearson, Animal Liberation, pers.comm. 2010) and can adversely affect the viability of the industry through lobbying and public influence and political discourse.

Discussion  

Keeping native mammals as pets is not a strategy within the conventional conservation toolkit, and indeed is contentious. However, it is analogous to the commercialisation of Wollemi pine Wollemia nobilis, a rare and ancient tree “discovered” by science close to Sydney only in 1994. Motivated by conservation objectives, artificially propagated specimens of the tree were bred and are now sold widely in Australian nurseries (see Australian Government & DECC 2007). Likewise, a current initiative is underway in Tanzania to captive breed a Critically Endangered viper and make it available in pet markets, to satisfy demand, raise awareness, and establish insurance populations (Hance 2011). In our view, expanded keeping of Australian wildlife has the potential to deliver real benefits for the conservation of a range of threatened species. The rapid escalation of mammal declines, across northern Australia in particular, highlights the urgent need for supplementary captive breeding efforts, and without the financial incentive provided by private keeping the resources for adequate efforts in this direction are sorely lacking. The ongoing disengagement and lack of contact between ordinary Australians and wildlife needs to be reversed, and the interest and awareness stimulated by native animal keeping could assist this. Private keepers can and do increase understanding of species’ biology and behaviour, and if these communities were organised and linked into a network of “Conservation Keepers” their contributions to science and conservation could be enhanced. However, these benefits are of course only likely if the industry is carefully structured and regulated (while not being over-regulated). The conservation merits of private native mammal keeping must be assessed in the context of the available alternatives. The main alternative is to continue the status quo, which encourages and supports the widespread keeping of exotic species that have significant impacts on native wildlife and readily become feral, notably cats. A growing body of evidence demonstrates how current efforts to conserve native mammals are failing. In this light, we feel that it is very difficult to justify the continued exclusion of many native mammals from private keeping on the grounds of conservation. We further consider that sufficient measures can be put in place to protect against the potential for poor welfare of the animals kept. Keeping native wildlife is part of a broader potential strategy of engaging the  private sector more closely in conservation efforts, which is typically resisted by government regulators, but which has as much potential and deserves

14

encouragement.  There are a number of private conservation organisations (such as Bush Heritage and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy) as well as motivated individuals in Australia taking the initiative in terms of captive breeding and reintroductions, but they often face arduous and protracted regulatory obstacles. In areas such as this, governance should be more adaptive, and should be able to support initiatives where it is obvious that the status quo is not moving toward achieving conservation goals (i.e. if a native species is continuing to decline). The publication of the full report on which this report was based (Cooney et al. 2010) sparked a degree of media interest (see e.g. ABC 2011). But debate has not to date gone beyond the level of fairly simplistic issues, while responses have been predictably strongly in favour or strongly opposed to the initiative. Despite communication with some government agencies, detailed political or governmental examination of the case for expanding native pet keeping has not to date taken place. Such a change faces entrenched institutional inertia, as well as the outcries of animal protection and animal rights organisations, which are typically highly media-savvy and have a simple emotive message to sell. However, in recent months, and stimulated by the Cooney et al. (2010) report, a new non-governmental organisation has formed called Wildlife Conservation Keepers Australia. It aims to raise public awareness of the merits of involving the public in the breeding and keeping of native wildlife to boost conservation, and also to encourage regulatory agencies to adapt accordingly. Such a champion is likely to be necessary if private keeping is to contribute to wildlife conservation in the future in Australia. Acknowledgements The Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) is gratefully acknowledged for funding the study that formed the basis for this chapter. The authors also wish to acknowledge the time and expertise of the study’s Steering Committee (Ian McCausland, Peter Gowland and Hank Jenkins) and the Expert Advisory Committee (George Wilson, Carolyn Larcombe and Peter Ampt), and enthusiastic input from many colleagues and consultants, particularly Greg Miles and Mike Archer. References Archer, M. 2000. Monstrous moggies or charming chuditches? Nature

Australia 26: 70-71. Archer, M. and Beale, B. 2004. Going Native. Hachette Australia, Sydney. Australian Government & DECC 2007 Wollemi Pine Recovery Plan.

Australian Government and NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change. Online at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/RecoveryPlanWollemiPine.pdf (accessed December 21, 2011).

15

Barlow, C.G., Hogan, A.E and Rodgers, L.J. 1987. Implication of translocated fishes in the apparent extinction in the wild of the Lake Eacham rainbowfish, Melanotaenia eachamensis. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 897-902.

BIS Shrapnel. 2006. Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian

Economy. Report for the Australian Companion Animal Council, BIS Shrapnel Pty. Ltd., Sydney.

Butler, P.J. 1992. Parrots, Pressures, People, and Pride. In: New World

Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology. Eds. Beissinger, S.R. and Snyder, N.F.R. Smithsonian Institution Press, USA, pp. 25-46.

CBD (2004). Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of

Wild Living Resources. Convention on Biological Diversity. Online at http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio- eco/use/addis-principles.asp

Chapman, T. 2005. The Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus

moluccanus) in South-West Western Australia. Perth, Department of Agriculture, Government of Western Australia.

Chapple, R.S., English, A.W., Mulley,R.C. and Lepherd, E.E. 1991.

Haematology and serum biochemistry of captive unsedated chital deer (Axis axis) in Australia. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 27 (3).

Cooney, R., Chapple, R.S., Doornbos, S. and Jackson, S. 2010. A feasibility

study into the use of Australian native mammals as pets. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. Publication No. 10/072.

Cork S., Sattler P. & Alexandra J. 2006. Biodiversity Theme Commentary.

Online at http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/commentaries/biodiversity/index.html. Accessed 13 March 2010.

DECC 2008. Why can't you keep other native mammals - like quolls or sugar

gliders - as pets? Online at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/wildlifelicences/cantkeepnativemammals.htm. Accessed 23 July 2009.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). 2009. Keeping and

Trading Wildlife Factsheet – Amendments to the Wildlife Regulations 2002. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Dickman, C.R. 1996. Overview of the impacts of feral cats on Australian

native fauna. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Dickman, C.R. 2009. House cats as predators in the Australian environment:

impacts and management. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3(1): 41-48.

16

Fordham, D.A., Georges A. and Brook, B.W. 2008. Indigenous harvest, exotic pig predation and local persistence of a long-lived vertebrate: managing a tropical freshwater turtle for sustainability and conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 52-62.

Hance J. (2011) New large horned viper discovered, but biologists keep location quiet. Mongabay, December 15th 2011. Online at http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1215-hance_matildasviper.html#ixzz1gmNWXYB5 (Accessed December 21, 2011). Hopwood, P. 2002. Native Australian mammals as pets: an overview. In: A

Zoological Revolution. Using Native Fauna to Assist in Its Own Survival. Eds. Lunney, D. and Dickman, C. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum, Sydney, pp. 77-83.

Hutton, J.M. and Leader-Williams, N. 2003. Sustainable use and incentive-

driven conservation: realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx 37(2): 215-226.

IUCN 2000. IUCN Policy Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living

Resources. Available at http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/SUSG_policy_en.pdf [18 January 2011]

Jackson, S.M. 2003. Australian Mammals: Biology and Captive Management.

CSIRO Press, Melbourne. Johnson, R. 2006. Thirty years of rehab - experiences of a wildlife

veterinarian. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales Forum: “Too Close for Comfort”. Royal Zoological Society New South Wales, pp. 15-21.

Lindenmayer, D. 2007. On Borrowed Time: Australia’s Environmental Crisis

and What We Must Do About It. Camberwell, Vic., Penguin. Lindsey P., Frank L., Alexander R., Mathieson A. and Romanach S. 2007.

Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conservation Biology 21: 880-883.

Low, T. 2002. The New Nature. Australia, Viking. Mattioli, F., Gili, C. and Andreone, F. 2006. Economics of captive breeding

applied to the conservation of selected amphibian and reptile species from Madagascar. Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civili di Storia Naturale Milano 95(2): 67-80.

Morton, S.R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lindenmayer, D.B. et al. 2009. The big

ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia. Austral Ecology 34: 1-9.

17

NSW Parliament. 2008. Animals (Regulation of Sale) Bill 2008 - 14/11/2008 - 1R 2R - NSW Parliament. Online at http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/52719770BAB2BDA3CA2574FF0017D529. Accessed October 7, 2011.

Parker, K.A. 2008. Translocations: providing outcomes for wildlife, resource

managers, scientists, and the human community. Restoration Ecology 16(2): 204-209.

Parliamentary Senate Inquiry. 1998. Commercial Utilisation of Australian

Native Wildlife. Commonwealth of Australia. Online: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1996-99/wild/report/c17.htm. Accessed Oct 8, 2011.

Pressey, R.L. and Bottrill, M.C. 2008. Opportunism, Threats and the Evolution

of Systematic Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology 22: 1340–1345.

Rabinovich, J. 2005. Parrots, precaution and Project Ele: Management in the

face of multiple uncertainties. In: Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use. Eds. Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. London, Earthscan: pp. 173-188.

Rosser, A., Leader-Williams, N. and Tareen, N. 2005. The Precautionary

Principle, Uncertainty and Trophy Hunting: A Review of the Torghar Population of Central Asian Markhor Capra falconeri. Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle: Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use. Eds. Cooney, R. and Dickson, B. London, UK, Earthscan: 55-72.

RSPCA. 2010a. Why should I have my pet desexed. Article ID 215. Royal

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia. Online: http://kb.rspca.org.au/Why-should-I-have-my-pet-desexed_215.html. Accessed October 7, 2011.

RSPCA. 2010b. Is it acceptable to keep native animals as pets. Article ID 132.

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Australia. Online: http://kb.rspca.org.au/Is-is-acceptable-to-keep-native-animals-as-pets_132.html. Accessed October 8, 2011.

Sutherland, W.J., Adams, W.M., Aronson, R.B. et al. 2009. One hundred

questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23: 557–567.

Tisdell, C. and Wilson, C. 2004. The public's knowledge of and support for

conservation of Australia's tree-kangaroos and other animals. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2339-2359.

Tucker, L.L. 2008. Australia’s regulation of commercial use of wildlife: an

absence of eco-logic. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, Australia.

18

http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/789 Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. 2010. The Mammals of Australia. Reed Book,

Sydney. Viggers, K.L. and Lindenmayer, D.B. 2002. “Problems with keeping native

Australian mammals as companion animals.” In: A Zoological Revolution. Using Native Fauna to Assist in Its Own Survival. Eds. Lunney, D. and Dickman, C. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum, Sydney, pp. 130-151.

Vogelnest, L. and Woods, R. (eds.) 2008. Medicine of Australian Mammals.

CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Webb, G.J.W. (2002). Conservation and sustainable use of wildlife - an

evolving concept. Pacific Conserv. Biol. 8(1): 12-26. Webb, G.J.W. and Manolis, S.C. 1993. Conserving Australia's crocodiles

through commercial incentives. In Herpetology in Australia: A Diverse Discipline. Eds. Lunney, D. and Ayers, D., Transactions of Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.

Wilson, C. and Tisdell, C. 2005. Knowledge of birds and willingness to support

their conservation: an Australian case study. Bird Conservation International 15: 225-235.

World Parrot Trust 2009. World Parrot Trust: Twenty Years, Saving Parrots.

Online at http://www.parrots.org. Accessed April 30th, 2010.