I'm hoping that someone, preferably from Qld, can settle a debate for me.
I was told a few years ago by a local Wildlife Carer and an Environmental Parks and Wildlife volunteer/worker that you do not need a licence to keep a Rainbow Lorikeet that has been rescued. Someone on the internet referred to Regulation 2006 Schedule 8 Prohibited wildlife section 41 and said it is illegal. I read that, but it is very confusing as it says OTHER THAN Australian Lorikeets. Would there be anyone on here who has experience with Rainbow Lorikeets be able to shed any light on this?
Nature Conservation (Wildlife)Regulation 2006
Part 3: Classes of other wildlife and declared management intent for the wildlife
Division 2 Prohibited wildlife
43 (2) Prohibited wildlife is of NO VALUE to Queensland’s nature and is likely to be a threatening process to native wildlife and Queensland’s natural biodiversity.
45 Principles for the keeping and use of prohibited wildlife
(2) The keeping and use of prohibited wildlife may be authorised under the Act only if the keeping or use poses no more than a minimal risk to the conservation of nature.
Schedule 8 Prohibited wildlife
Section 41
1 Birds
The following birds are prohibited wildlife—
Carpodacus mexicanus - house finch
Emberiza citrinella - yellowhammer
Fringilla coelebs - chaffinch
Passer montanus - Eurasian tree sparrow
Pycnonotus cafer - red-vented bulbul
Pycnonotus jocosus - red-whiskered bulbul
Pyrrhula pyrrhula - Eurasian bullfinch
Quelea quelea - red-billed quelea
Trichoglossus haematodus other than T. h. haematodus and T. h. rubritorquatus - rainbow lorikeet other than the Australian species
Turdus merula - Eurasian or common blackbird
Turdus philomelos - song thrush
ALL the above are introduced species.
T. h. haematodus and T. h. rubritorquatus are AUSTRALIAN RAINBOW LORIKEETS.
The are more than 10 other Rainbow Lorikeets that not native to Australia, that's where the sentence "other than the Australian species" coming from.
Quote from the Regulation:
The taking, keeping or use of wildlife may be authorised under the Act only if it is consistent with the management principles for the wildlife.
Bryan
I'm still having a lot of trouble understanding it. Can I or can I not, keep an Australian Rainbow Lorikeet, without a licence?
I really don't understand the difference between the species, whether one group (which seem to be related) is Australian or not. I looked up 2 similar breeds in Google Images; Trichoglossus haematodus, and T. h. haematodus - and they look identical; according to that, one is ok, and one is not - when its impossible to tell the difference from the images.
As I said, I read all of that, but didn't understand it at all, and am now even more confused.
Gidday Salem I feel for you mate it is an absolute pain in the a#$ just trying to do the right thing.
Some natives do not require permits and some do.
Yes mate you can read this and read that and ring Government departments and still be confused.
I used to keep Native parrots and Finches, in the end I just got fed up with the amount of paperwork I had to keep so I sold them all and kept African finches instead.
Mate if you are in QLD the quickest and easiest way to find out about Lorries is ring a pet shop that sells natives they will give you all the info you need.
Problem solved !!!!
Your bird is probably long since gone or died, so I am writing this for the next person who finds your question, because I've just researched the same question.
As I understand it from Chapter 3 s46 of Qld's Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006
the animal must be is kept for the person’s private enjoyment or rearing, provided you keep it for 6 months or until it dies or fledges.
Just my take on it. I hope it helps the next person.
Jezza11
Yikes! Why on Earth would anyone want to deprive an Australian bird of its freedom?
Because if it is set free to survive in the wild it will probably die? I've just been offered a baby Lorakeet, it looks like it has been kicked out of the nest, it has an injured eye, probably from being attacked by a crow before it was rescured. Right now it needs lots of TLC but should survive, but left to it's own devices has little chance. I too would much prefer to see them in the wild but sometimes it isn't the best answer. (I am not meaning to sound nasty, just answering your question)
Thanks, it has helped me :)
I appreciate your concern, swanee. It's difficult not to feel sympathy for an injured bird. However, I'm in the, apparently, different school of thought which sees human interference in nature's ways as fraught with danger, particularly now that our natural environment is in such a parlous state due to human behaviour. We only need to look around us at the state of our natural environment to see that this is so.
There are times, of course, when it is appropriate to rescue an injured bird. E.g., if a bird is being attacked by a cat then it is entirely appropriate to rescue the bird (but certainly not the cat!). Even more appropriate to follow up the rescue of the bird with an approach to the local council for a strong cat control programme.
But before playing the role of rescuer perhaps we need to consider whether our rescuing might be having a harmful affect on, for example, species' population numbers which, in turn, might, have a harmful effect on other species.
Perhaps the most effective way of being a rescuer is to protect & restore natural habitat & ecological systems. This will help nature do its thing in ensuring healthy bird populations.
The role of rescuer is often about meeting the needs of the rescuer rather than the needs of ecological systems. Our heart strings are so often given a solid twang when we see an animal in distress & I believe we need to be aware of this twanging before acting. So, I would encourage people who are inclined to rescue - & most of us are - to think about why they're inclined to rescue & the circumstances in which the rescue might occur. Is the rescue for the bird or is it for the ecological system? Ecological systems are where our need to rescue needs to be directed, in my view.