Wildlife Regulations 2013
Summary of issues raised in submissions and DEPI’s response to these issues
Introduction
On the 2 April 2013, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, formerly the Department of Sustainability and Environment released a Regulatory
Impact Statement (RIS) to facilitate public consultation on the draft Wildlife Regulations 2013. The public submission period closed on the 3 May 2013.
The Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) received a total of 37 submissions on the draft regulations and RIS. DEPI has carefully reviewed the
comments made in each submission and has made amendments in finalising the Wildlife Regulations 2013 where appropriate.
Summary of submissions and DEPI’s response
The following table summarises the issues raised by members of the public in response to the Wildlife Regulations 2013 (the regulations) and DEPI’s response to
each issue.
Part 1
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
The definition of 'trap' in the regulations includes devices
regulated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1986. Where trapping is permitted it should be in
accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1986 regulations.
‘Marking' is not defined in the proposed regulations, but
should be to exclude cruel procedures such as amputation
and to require competency in the permitted method (e.g.
micro-chipping).
Trapping is only permitted under a licence or authorisation, in which case the conditions
imposed would address this.
The proposed regulations lack a definition of 'wildlife
habitat'.
Noted, however to include a definition of this nature in the regulations would require
extensive consideration and consultation, and there was not sufficient time following the
RIS consultation process.
Definitions
1.1
1.2
1.3
Marking is only permitted under a licence or authorisation or when directed to do so by
the Secretary of DEPI, in which case the conditions imposed would cover welfare concerns.
Part 2 - General
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Advertisements displaying licence number
2.1
The proposed requirement that wildlife licence holders
must display their licence number when advertising the
sale of the wildlife is poorly worded, discriminatory and
increases the risks of identity theft (people using other
peoples licence numbers). Are advertisements in club
magazines subject to this requirement?
The requirement to include the licence number on advertisements to sell wildlife is
important to enable DEPI compliance officers to track and monitor transactions involving
wildlife to ensure each trade is legal (e.g. that the animal is captive bred or from another
legal source).
Application requirements
2.2
Regulation 20 sets out the requirements for a licence
application, however, there is no requirement to
demonstrate that applicants have the appropriate
knowledge and skill to hold the relevant licence or perform
the activities permitted in the licence.
No change. The licence holder is responsible to ensure, when applying for a licence, that
they have the relevant skills and knowledge required to comply with the conditions of
their licence.
2.3
Support the information requirement to disclose details of
prior offences under the Wildlife Act 1975 and the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 when applying
for a wildlife licence. Is it possible to also require details of
offences under equivalent Acts in other jurisdictions?
This requirement was incorporated into the regulations.
Registering employees
2.4
The information required regarding employees of a
Commercial Wildlife Licence should also include the date of
birth of the employee, as it is critical to accurately identify
licence holders and persons who have breached provisions
of the Wildlife Act 1975 or regulations.
This requirement was incorporated into the regulations.
2
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Marking of wildlife
2.5
The requirements regarding marking of individual wildlife
have been improved compared to the current regulations,
however the type of mark should be humane or, if no
painless alternative is available, should only be performed
in conjunction with pain relief and by a competent person.
Noted.
2.6
Micro-chipping of wildlife (excluding Dingoes), should only
be done under permit due to the high risk of injuring
struggling conscious wildlife, which are often trapped and
processed at night/dusk.
The regulations do not require the micro-chipping of wildlife held under a licence with the
exception of captive bred Dingoes, in which case it must be done by an authorised
implanter in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Any other micro-chipping of
wildlife is handled under a research permit issued under the Wildlife Act 1975, and is
subject to ethics approval by a relevant licensed Animal Ethics Committee.
Record keeping and returns
2.7
Suggest that the level of information required in record
books could be streamlined (e.g. a bird only entered into
the record book once it has fledged as a large number die
between hatching and fledging due to parents not feeding
them, etc.).
The information required to be recorded in record books have been streamlined and
clarified. However, the suggested change is not supported as it would leave DEPI with no
means of tracing legal sources for hatchlings.
2.8
Support annual reporting (as a minimum) for all licence
holders. Effective tracking of numbers of wildlife taken or
bred is vital. Without regular reporting it is questionable
how robust the tracking of native animals will be, especially
if there are exemptions, cut-off limits and, in some cases,
unlimited holding numbers. If some licence holders are
exempt there is potential for a loss of ability to track these
licence holders and ensure compliance and appropriate
welfare controls.
Noted.
2.9
The tampering of logbooks is an acknowledged method for
laundering wildlife, so why is it proposed to relax current
record keeping and reporting requirements.
The RIS included options to increase or decrease frequency of reporting of activities
carried out under a wildlife licence, or maintaining current annual reporting. The decision
has been made to maintain annual reporting requirements in the regulations. Penalties for
the tampering of a record book, or being in possession of a tampered record book, have
3
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
been increased to reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Theft, loss or damage
2.10
The requirement to report the theft or loss of wildlife to
DEPI does not appear to cover reporting the death of
wildlife held under the licence?
The death of wildlife held under a licence is required to be recorded in the record book
and the Secretary of DEPI is required to be notified in annual returns.
2.11
The requirement to report a theft, loss or damage, or
escape of a dingo, within 48 hours to DEPI is not possible
due to public holidays.
The regulations now refer to business days rather than calendar days.
Specified premises
2.12
The requirement that animals can only be sold from the
premises specified in the licence or that the address of both
parties must be provided on transport labelling is a
concern, as often people’s collections contain valuable
wildlife and giving out a personal address to strangers is a
big safety concern.
This requirement is in place for compliance and enforcement reasons. While the
transaction must occur on the property, it does not have to occur within the licence
holder's actual residence as it is the licence holder’s right to refuse entry into their
residence to avoid unwanted persons from seeing their collection.
Part 3 - Protection of Wildlife
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Housing of wildlife
3.1
Support the inclusion of provisions related to the welfare of
animals being housed and transported under a licence.
Noted.
4
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
3.2
The housing requirements to provide adequate shelter and
to provide for the good health and welfare of the animal
are too vague and may not be legally enforceable. Suggest
instead referencing compliance with the applicable code of
practice as stipulated on the licence, and naming the code
of practice on the licence to ensure a better chance for
successful prosecution.
The requirement to comply with the relevant codes of practice has been incorporated into
the regulations.
3.3
The circumstances in which the Secretary may give approval These circumstances are not able to be pre-determined in the regulations.
for a person to keep wildlife in an enclosure which does not
comply with the housing requirements in sub-regulation (1)
should be specified in the regulations.
Interbreeding of wildlife
3.4
Regarding the interbreeding of wildlife (section 46), it is
recommended the reference to "unless they are known to
interbreed or to occur in the wild" be removed.
Our native wildlife has evolved naturally over millions of years. Unless the breeding of two
different species has occurred naturally in the wild, it is not advisable as it could result in
metabolic disorders, structural abnormalities and inherited disease conditions.
Protection of wildlife
3.5
Support the proposed changes to the offence regarding
damaging, disturbing or destroying wildlife habitat. The
offence needs to have an increased penalty provision
commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, and the
removal of the reference to 'willfulness' to make the
offence one of strict liability is a welcome change.
Noted.
3.6
The use of recorded sound, or playback, should be banned
altogether unless under a licence or permit with
appropriate conditions
In the regulations, the use of a recorded sound to hunt or take wildlife is an offence, unless
authorised or licensed to do so.
5
Part 4 - Exemptions
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
4.1
Why is there a new exemption for 'game' in the context of
protecting wildlife from unlicensed hunting activity?
Under the offences relating to the taking of wildlife (section 41), the regulations now
include sub-regulation (7) which states that in this section wildlife does not include game.
This is not a blanket exemption for game species, but instead avoids duplication with the
Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2012 which already has similar activities listed as offences for
game species unless the person is licensed or authorised to do so.
4.2
Suggest amending the exemption to an offence under the
transport provision to require a person possessing sick,
injured or abandoned wildlife for the purpose of
transporting the wildlife to a veterinarian or rehabilitator,
must comply with: 41(1)(b) prevent the escape or injuring
of the wildlife and (e) provide for the good health and
welfare of the animal during transport.
Suggest that species that can be kept without a licence also
be exempt from the requirement for an import/export
permit.
This is implied already in the provision; a person transporting sick, injured or abandoned
wildlife to a veterinarian would only be doing so in the interest of the animal’s welfare.
4.4
The exemption for veterinarians from offences under
section 47 of the Wildlife Act 1975 duplicates a provision of
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, which also
provides the same exemption. This duplication could cause
confusion.
Advice from the Office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel is that the provision is not
duplication of a provision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and therefore
does not require amendment.
4.5
Veterinary practitioners from time to time are required to
After further investigation, it was not considered necessary for the exemption to be
destroy wildlife that has been voluntarily surrendered to
amended, as these circumstances arise only on occasion and can be handled through the
DEPI Authorised Officers or seized under section 59 of the
issuing of an authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975.
Wildlife Act 1975 and ordered destroyed or otherwise
disposed of by the Magistrate's Court (i.e. not in accordance
with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986).
Therefore this regulation needs to be amended to cater for
these situations.
4.3
Due to interstate variations in licensing requirements for species of wildlife, the
requirement for an import or export permit is a valuable compliance tool to assist in the
monitoring of legal movement of wildlife across Victoria's borders. Therefore this
suggestion is not supported.
6
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
4.6
From time to time persons other than the Zoological Parks
and Gardens Board are required to possess threatened and
protected wildlife for the purposes of identifying, analysing,
or temporarily housing wildlife that has been voluntarily
surrendered or seized under section 59 of the Wildlife Act
1975 (e.g. wildlife held as evidence of an offence). An
exemption to cater for this situation would fit neatly within
regulation 49, however, it needs to cater for threatened
wildlife also. Similarly, Museums Victoria staff are from
time to time required to identify specimens. This would
generally be done in the presence of an authorised officer
and an exemption may already apply.
Refer to the response to 5.3 above.
4.7
The regulations should include an authorisation or
exemption allowing authorised persons to euthanase
wildlife when it is not practical to transport the animal to a
vet or wildlife rehabilitator. This could be in the form of a
permit issued to wildlife rescuers who have completed
appropriate training or hold relevant licenses. It is
suggested that Wildlife Victoria be the responsible body for
ensuring these people are trained and appropriately
licensed.
Anyone is able to euthanase an animal under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
if they believe it is suffering, therefore an exemption in the regulations is not required.
7
Part 5 - Private Wildlife Licences
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Dingo Licence
5.1
The fee for the proposed Dingo Licence is too high for a
private keeper, considering the current permit under the
Wildlife Act 1975 is free and I also have to pay a council
registration fee.
The fee for the Dingo Licence has been reassessed and reduced from $155.50 to $120 per
annum. Pure-bred dingoes are exempt from council registration requirements under the
Domestic Animals Act 1994, provided they are held under a licence issued under the
Wildlife Act 1975.
5.2
The proposed Dingo Licence fee should include the cost of
paying the council registration fee, so that dingo keepers do
not have to pay for two difference licences.
Pure-bred dingoes are exempt from council registration requirements under the Domestic
Animals Act 1994 provided they are held under a licence under the Wildlife Act 1975.
Therefore only one licence, and one fee, is required.
5.3
My dingo is no different from other domestic dogs and was
born in captivity, but is treated differently only because of
his wild nature.
While most privately kept dingoes can be tame in nature, dingoes are different from pet
dogs. They behave differently, need special enclosures and will bond quickly with their
owners, but seldom with other people. Therefore the Dingo Licence includes conditions
that are different from and more stringent for safety and welfare reasons, than those that
would normally apply to a dog.
5.4
The proposed condition that dingoes must not be handled
by other people (excluding veterinarians) without approval
by DEPI (former DSE) is unrealistic as in most cases privately
kept dingoes have regular contact with family members of
the licence holder or with visitors. This could harm the
socialisation of these animals.
The regulations now require that if a person other than the licence holder interacts with a
dingo, the licence holder must ensure the interaction is done so in a manner which
minimises the risk of injury to any person or the dingo.
5.5
The rules that hybrid dingo-dogs only need to be registered
with local council could be open to abuse as it would be
cheaper to register a purebred dingo as a hybrid with
council, than with DEPI (former DSE). A lower fee would be
more realistic for private dingo keepers to comply with the
proposed changes.
The fee for the Dingo Licence has been reassessed and reduced from $155.50 to $120 per
annum with the intention of reducing any incentive for people to register a pure-bred
dingo as a dingo-dog hybrid with their local council.
8
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.6
The Dingo Licence fee should have concessions applied if
the dingo has been neutered, or concession or the fee
waived if the owner is a member of a canine or dingo
conservation organisation which encourage responsible
ownership.
Under the Domestic Animals Act 1994, these concessions apply to the registration of a dog
or cat. There is no similar concession available to private Wildlife Basic or Advanced
Licence holders who keep wildlife and are members of an associated organisation.
Therefore it would not be appropriate or equitable to apply a concession to holders of a
private Dingo Licence. However, concessions apply to persons eligible under the State
Concessions Act 2004.
5.7
I am a pensioner who currently holds a dingo authorisation.
What is the concession pensioners receive on the licence?
Pensioners and other persons eligible under the State Concessions Act 2004 receive a 50%
discount on the licence fees under the regulations.
5.8
Regarding the proposed new Dingo Licence, how does DEPI
propose to define a pure bred dingo?
Pure-bred Dingos are not reliably distinguished from dingo-dog hybrids or wild dogs.
Genetic tests are available to reliably distinguish between these three groups. It is up to
the dingo owner to determine whether their dingo is a pure breed or a hybrid. If the dingo
is a pure breed, then the owner must obtain a Dingo Licence under the regulations. If it is a
hybrid, it will be required to be registered with the local council like any other pet dog.
5.9
What is the purpose of keeping dingoes privately? Is it for
the purpose of preservation of the species and thus
reintroduction into the wild?
The Dingo Licence is for the private keeping of captive bred dingoes as pets. It also has the
benefit of maintaining a gene pool given the dingo is a threatened species in Victoria.
5.10
What mechanisms are proposed in the regulations to
manage the risks associated with keeping dingoes and are
these consistent with the Government's policy position on
dangerous dogs?
Dingoes are not classed as a dangerous dog and are exempt from council registration
requirements under the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The Dingo Licence has restrictions
and conditions in place to ensure safety of the dingo and people coming into contact with
the dingo.
5.11
The micro-chipping of dingoes should be done in
accordance with the provisions of the Domestic Animals Act
1994 for the implantation of permanent identification
devices.
This requirement is now incorporated into the regulations.
5.12
Regarding the proposed new Dingo Licence, what
constitutes obedience training? Does this include attack
training?
Obedience training does not include attack training.
9
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.13
The proposed regulations prescribe the minimum age for
selling dingo pups as seven weeks; however, the minimum
standard for companion dogs under the code of practice for
the private keeping of dogs is eight weeks.
Dingo pups are different from other dogs in that they have greater chance of bonding with
their new owner and developing socialisation skills if they are passed on to their new
owner at a young age. Dingo pups are generally fully weaned by seven weeks of age, and
are still young enough to be able to form a bond with humans. It is also important to
ensure for welfare reasons that the pup has been fully weaned from its mother and is selfsufficient.
5.14
The housing requirements for the private keeping of
dingoes should also include the animal welfare
considerations required under regulation 43 and 44.
The housing (section 43) and transport (section 44) provisions apply to all wildlife licence
categories, including the Dingo Licence.
5.15
Dingo pups are allowed to be sold at seven weeks of age,
but the micro-chipping requirement applies to dingo pups
over 7 weeks of age. Suggest amending this to '7 weeks or
over'.
The regulations now require micro-chipping at seven weeks or over.
5.16
Recommend that the micro-chipping of dingoes kept under
licence is consistent with the micro-chipping requirements
of the Domestic Animals Act. Micro-chip technology is used
internationally as the recommend methods of permanent
identification of canines. Tattooing as an identification
method is no longer recommended.
The regulations now require the micro-chipping of dingoes to be done by an authorised
implanter in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
5.17
Not allowing persons under the age of 18 to apply for a
Dingo Licence is unduly restrictive and is not consistent with
the conditions of Wildlife Advanced Licences which enable
persons under the age of 18 to keep venomous snakes The
Dingo License should be consistent with the Wildlife
Advanced Licence so that a person under 18 years of age
can hold a licence with the consent of a parent or legal
guardian.
Children under the age of 18 years can apply for an Advanced Wildlife Licence provided
they have parental or legal guardian consent and can provide documentation to
demonstrate their snake handling abilities, usually in the form of a certificate of
competency from a snake handling course. There is no equivalent course for dingo
handling. The conditions required for a Dingo Licence are also unique, as are the
compliance and enforcement requirements. Allowing the private keeping of dingoes under
a Wildlife Advanced Licence was investigated but found not to be appropriate.
10
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.18
The requirement that children under 16 years of age are
not allowed unsupervised access to dingoes at any time
should be reduced to 10 years of age or amended to state
that children under 16 years of age can have unsupervised
access with the licence holders permission.
For safety reasons, the 16 years of age restriction in this provision has been kept.
5.19
The requirement that dingoes must only be kept at the
address specified in the licence, except for exercise or
obedience training is too restrictive, as it doesn't allow for
cases where the owner goes on holidays and needs to
relocate the dingo to another licence holder for the
duration, or when the owner has a second residence.
While the regulations restrict the private keeping of dingoes to the specified premises,
they also allow for the keeping of dingoes at an alternative address with the prior approval
of DEPI.
5.20
Agree with the requirement that dingoes must not be sold
for commercial purposes, but recommend that a definition
of "commercial purposes" is included along with a sanction
for breach of this regulation.
A definition of commercial purposes is not necessary in the regulations as the common law
definition is sufficient.
5.21
The restriction that pure bred dingoes are not permitted to
be bred with dingo-dog hybrids is too restrictive as it does
not allow for pure bred dingos to be bred with hybrids that
have high conservation value (e.g. DNA testing has shown
only small hybridisation) and therefore preventing
inbreeding in captive pure bred dingoes.
While the regulations restrict the breeding of dingoes with dingo-dog hybrids, they also
allow the licence holder to seek written approval for this activity from DEPI. These
requests will be assessed on a case by case basis.
5.22
Dingo pups should be allowed to be passed on (sold) to
their new owners from 5 weeks of age to increase the
success of bonding between the owner and the animal, and
to begin socialisation from a young age.
Refer to the response to 6.13 above.
11
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.23
As the Dingo Licence is only for one species, it should cost
the same as a Wildlife Basic Licence, or allow Wildlife Basic
Licence holders to keep up to four dingoes under their
licence. The latter is preferable because it means that a
person with dingoes and a reptile does not need to obtain
two licences and subsequently pay double the fee.
While the Dingo Licence is only issued for one species of wildlife, it requires an inspection
of the dingo enclosures by an authorised officer prior to the licence being issued. This
additional cost to government of enforcing the Dingo Licence has been factored into the
fee calculation, resulting in a higher fee than the Wildlife Basic Licence fee. There are also
other specific conditions and requirements of the Dingo Licence that do not match the
licence conditions of the Wildlife Basic or Wildlife Advanced Licence categories.
If the concern is the additional inspections required for
dingo enclosures, why not charge an inspection fee on top
of the Wildlife Advanced Licence?
Under the regulations a person wishing to carry out activities that would require two
licences is required to pay the fee for both licences. This is also the case for a person
wishing to privately keep a dingo and another species of wildlife under a Wildlife Basic or
Advanced Licence. However, as outlined in the response to issue 6.1 the proposed fee for
the Dingo Licence has been reduced from $155.50 to $120 per annum.
5.24
The Dingo is not listed in Schedule 2, 3 or 6 which suggests
that Demonstrators or Displayers are not able to
demonstrate or display with dingoes under their licence.
This also suggests that private zoos will be required to hold
a licence.
Wildlife Demonstrators and Displayers are able to demonstrate or display dingoes
provided prior written approval is obtained from DEPI and it is specified on their licence.
5.25
There is ample evidence that suggests that dingoes are not
aggressive and do not present a danger to the community.
There is also a vast difference in terms of safety risks
between dingoes and venomous snakes.
Noted. Refer to responses to 3.5 and 6.10 above.
5.26
As dingoes are listed as a threatened species, the
regulations should include restrictions on exporting dingoes
with sanctions for breaching the regulations.
All applications for an import or export permit across Victoria’s border are assessed based
on their merit by wildlife licensing staff, taking into consideration the appropriateness of
the request, as well as laws and policies in place in Victoria and interstate. Any person
caught moving wildlife across state borders without the appropriate permit or licence will
be liable for prosecution under the Wildlife Act 1975.
Export of live captive wildlife overseas is regulated by the Commonwealth government
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and is generally
only authorised for export to a zoological institution or when a person is moving overseas
and wishes to take their pet with them. This is subject to a rigorous assessment process.
Strict sanctions apply under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 for illegal export of wildlife overseas.
12
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.27
The various dingo organisations were not invited to
stakeholder workshops during the consultation phase of
developing the proposed regulations. Dingo owners did not
even receive copies of the RIS.
5.28
The Dingo Licence should also allow the licence holder to
possess dingoes at other sites for the purposes of public
education.
A letter was sent prior to the release of the RIS to all dingo keepers in Victoria who hold a
current authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975, advising them of the proposal to
incorporate a Dingo Licence into the regulations. A copy of the RIS including the proposed
regulations, the RIS Summary Document and a fact sheet outlining the detail of the
proposed Dingo Licence was also sent to all authorised dingo keepers upon release of the
RIS.
The regulations now permit licence holders to possess dingoes at other sites for the
purposes of public education.
5.29
The requirement for a dingo, when outside of the premises
specified on the licence, to wear a collar that states the
name and address of the licence holder and the licence
number is unrealistic as identification discs generally can't
fit the required information.
Noted. The information required to be shown on an identification disc has been revised in
the proposed regulations to ensure it is practical.
Wildlife Basic and Wildlife Advanced Licences
5.30
The restriction on the keeping of species that are readily
available in other states should be removed, or advanced
licence holders should be permitted to import any species
sourced from a legal source interstate without limiting
these species to a schedule. This would allow amateur
naturalists to acquire valuable husbandry experience.
It is important to maintain schedules listing species of wildlife able to kept, traded or used
in Victoria to provide a means of monitoring and enforcing the regulations. The regulation
review process included a nomination process so that new species, including those that
are readily available from legal captive sources in other states, could be considered for
addition to the schedules or movement to a different schedule with reduced restrictions.
This process has resulted in 15 new species being added to the schedules, and seven
species being moved to a different schedule.
5.31
The fee increase for the Wildlife Basic Licence is too large
and may result in many families who keep a single pet no
longer wishing to hold the licence
While the fee for the Wildlife Basic Licence has increased in the proposed regulations, they
are still considered reasonable and comply with Victoria's Cost Recovery Guidelines.
13
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
5.32
The requirement that the holder of a Wildlife Basic Licence
and a Wildlife Advanced Licence can only sell or dispose of
wildlife after it has been in their possession for six months
should be removed, or only applied to species that require
a licence.
This requirement is in place for holders of a Wildlife Basic Licence and a Wildlife Advanced
Licence in order to deter these private licence holders from selling wildlife in a commercial
capacity (i.e. breeding and regular turnover of animals) as there are commercial wildlife
licences in place, with more stringent conditions, for this purpose.
5.33
The current system is well suited for hobbyists, and
commercial dealers, but doesn't cater for the first time
collector wanting a single pet. The yearly licence fee,
complicated application and record keeping requirements
dissuade most interested first-time collectors. There should
be a permit available for basic species with a long-term and
lower fee, issuable online and by the dealer (similar to a
fishing licence).
Effort has been made during the review of the current regulations to streamline licences
and make it easier for licence holders where possible. However, the keeping of wildlife as
pets comes with responsibility and often more complex husbandry requirements than the
average household pet such as a dog or a cat. Wildlife can also be valuable in the captive
trade, and therefore there is a strong need for enforcement and monitoring to ensure that
by allowing people to keep and trade in wildlife under a licence, the illegal trade in wildlife
is not encouraged. The wildlife licensing system and record keeping requirements are not
intended to deter first time wildlife keepers. The system has been instead developed to
have a strong foundation to ensure the industry is sustainable and ethical, and not
impacting our wild populations.
Wildlife Specimen Licence
5.34
Why is there a requirement that if a pet dies, and the
person wishes to keep the skeleton or have it taxidermied,
they must obtain another licence (Wildlife Specimen
Licence)? Similarly, why is it that a licence is not required to
keep some species of wildlife (e.g. Rainbow Lorikeet), but
when it dies, a licence is needed to keep its remains?
The Wildlife Specimen Licence allows DEPI to monitor the origin of prepared or
taxidermied specimens. These specimens must be obtained from a legal source, to ensure
licence holders are not destroying wildlife taken from the wild with the object of retaining
them as taxidermied specimens. Provided that the dead specimens are from captive stock
held under licence (when required), then there is no conservation issue involved with the
possession of taxidermied wildlife under this licence.
14
Part 6 - Commercial Wildlife Licences
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Employees of Commercial Wildlife Licence holders
6.1
Is there a requirement for employees to be appropriately
trained or skilled when undertaking activities under the
licence with wildlife?
A requirement that employers must ensure their employees are competent in the scope of
activities under the licence has been incorporated into the regulations.
6.2
The term ‘employee’ of Commercial Wildlife Licence
holders should also include volunteers.
In common law, volunteers are not considered to be employees. However, the regulations
ensure that volunteers who care for wildlife are exempt from committing an offence under
the Wildlife Act 1975 if the person is caring for wildlife under the immediate supervision of
a licence holder or an employee of the licence holder. This applies for Wildlife Dealer,
Wildlife Displayer, and Game Bird Farmer Licence holders.
6.3
With the removal of the Assistant Licence category, who is
accountable if an employee of a licence holder breaches the
law?
Both employer and employee can still be held accountable for their actions. The new
requirements on employers and employees under the regulations achieve the same
objectives as the abolished Assistant Licence, but without requiring employees to pay
licence fees. The changes enable DEPI to identify employees of a Commercial Wildlife
Licence holder, stipulate what those employees may or may not do with wildlife under the
licence and ensure that both the employer and employees are accountable for their
actions.
Game Bird Farmer Licence
6.4
Recreational hunting of wildlife should not be supported.
Breeding in captivity for hunting is abhorrent.
The Victorian Government supports the sustainable use of wildlife, including the breeding
and releasing of introduced game birds for the purpose of game hunting on private
property. The Wildlife Act 1975 provides for game hunting and ensures it occurs in a
sustainable and humane manner. The licensing and regulation of game hunters is covered
by the Wildlife (Game) Regulations 2012, while the Wildlife Regulations 2013 provide the
mechanism to licence game bird farmers wishing to raise and breed non-indigenous game
birds for release on private property for hunting.
In allowing game bird breeding and release, the Victorian Government needs to ensure
practices are sustainable, safe and humane. The previous and new regulations achieve this
15
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
through conditions on the proposed Game Bird Farmer Licence (or Wildlife Producer Type
1 Licence in the previous regulations) that govern licensees activities under the licence,
such as limiting the species to introduced game birds and specifying minimum standards
that need to be met, such as property size and husbandry standards to ensure the game
birds are managed in a humane manner.
6.5
The RIS failed to list the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Noted. Codes of practice under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 or the
Animals on Private Game Reserves Licensed to Hunt Game
Domestic Animals Act 1994 have now been incorporated into the regulations and the
Birds, and the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals in specific codes relevant to the activity will be specified on the licence.
Hunting. It also incorrectly listed the Code of Practice for
the Operation of Pet Shops as a Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act 1986 code, however it is a mandatory code
under the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
6.6
What are the trace back mechanisms in place to track the
source of released non-indigenous game birds on game bird
farms?
The record keeping requirements for Game Bird Farmers include the requirement to
record the species and number of non-indigenous game birds released for hunting, as well
as the number that were not recovered or that escaped. This information is required to be
submitted in annual returns to DEPI.
6.7
The requirement on Game Bird Farmer licence holders to
ensure wildlife 'is destroyed humanely so as to cause
sudden and painless death' will be difficult to meet as
customers on these farms may be new to shooting and can
be expected to maim rather than kill cleanly. In reality,
there will be very little supervision and enforcement, and
birds will suffer.
All hunters hunting game, including game birds, must abide by the Wildlife (Game)
Regulations 2012 which prescribe the manner, methods and equipment with which game
animals can be harvested. These methods and equipment are based on minimum
standards to ensure an efficient and effective harvest. People who harvest game species
outside of these regulations are liable to prosecution under the Prevention of Currently to
Animals Act 1986.
As game bird farms occur on private property in controlled situations, they provide a good
opportunity for new hunters to learn in a supervised environment.
16
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
6.8
The Game Bird Farmer Licence should be amended to
Private Game Reserve Licence, as it properly describes the
activity and is consistent with the terminology contained in
the Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals on Private
Game Reserves Licence to Hunt Game Birds.
Retaining 'Game Bird' in the title of the licence ensures that this is consistent with the titles
of other licence categories. Further, the use of the term ‘game reserve', may confuse
some people as it implies that more species than just game birds (i.e. deer) are being
harvested.
6.9
The proposed fees for the Game Bird Farmer licence are an
impediment to the development of this industry. These fees
should be substantially reduced to encourage entry of new
operators, and to bring those operators who are not
currently licensed into the regulatory system. We suggest
an annual fee of $200.
Fees have been assessed and re-set in accordance with Victoria’s Cost Recovery
Guidelines. As a result, fees for some licence categories have remained approximately the
same, whereas others have dropped substantially or have risen. The review of the
proposed fee for a Game Bird Farmer Licence has resulted in a decrease in fees (compared
to the Wildlife Producer Type 1, which is the equivalent licence in the previous
regulations). There is not sufficient justification to further reduce the fees.
6.10
The regulations should contain a provision requiring the
release of exotic game birds (other than those declared as
wildlife under the Wildlife Act) to take place only on
licensed premises. Currently licensed operators practice in
accordance with a code of practice, but persons not
requiring a licence operate outside these regulations and
the code, and risk bringing the industry into disrepute.
This issue is outside of the scope of the proposed regulations, as the regulations only
licence the farming of game species that are declared to be wildlife under the Wildlife Act
1975. The farming or hunting of other exotic game birds (not included in the definition of
wildlife) is not covered by the regulations.
Wildlife Controller Licence
6.11
Species such as Common Brushtail Possums and Sulphurcrested Cockatoos never endanger human lives. There are
non-lethal ways of dealing with species such as these that
should be adopted, such as relocation or engineering
controls such as ultrasonic devices or visual deterrents.
The Victorian government is committed to the conservation of wildlife in Victoria.
However, sometimes wildlife control is necessary to reduce damage that may be affecting
landholders’ livelihoods, property or wellbeing. DEPI's policy is to encourage non-lethal
methods of control first, and lethal methods are only adopted when no other options
remain. Licensed Wildlife Controllers are authorised to use a range of methods to remove
the danger to persons or damage to property from that wildlife (e.g. dispersal, trapping
and euthanasia by a veterinarian).
17
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
6.12
The taking of wildlife from their habitat, and the disposing
or selling of that wildlife merely because they constitute a
perceived threat to landowners should be banned. There
also seems to be no provision for monitoring of these
activities, or accountability by those who dispose of wildlife
in this way.
Refer to the response to 6.11 above. In addition, there are mechanisms in place in the
wildlife licensing system through which DEPI can monitor activities carried out under the
licence, through strict licence conditions, record keeping, reporting requirements, and
inspections.
6.13
Wildlife controller licences should not be categorised into
two types. Two categories for controlling wildlife is odious,
undesirable and totally unnecessary. Instead, there needs
to be more DEPI officers on the road, making sure that
lethal methods of control are the last resort only.
Under the Wildlife Regulations 2002, there already existed two categories of Wildlife
Controller Licence (a Type 1 and Type 2 licence). The new regulations combine these two
categories into one category, with a greater entitlement in order to streamline
administrative processes and reduce red tape.
6.14
6.15
DEPI's policy is to encourage non-lethal methods of control first, and lethal methods are
only used as a last resort.
The combining of the two Wildlife Controller licence
Fees have been assessed and re-set in accordance with Victoria’s Cost Recovery
categories and the new fee will result in a fee increase for
Guidelines. As a result, fees for some licence categories have remained approximately the
businesses currently possessing a Type 2 licence (authorised same, whereas others have dropped substantially or have risen. During the cost benefit
to control snakes only). This fee increase will mean it is no
assessment in the RIS, it was found that the administrative and compliance effort for
longer cost effective for snake controllers to operate under processing licences was the same for the sub-types of some commercial licence categories
their licence, and will mean that many do not take up the
(e.g. Wildlife Controller Type 1 and Type 2 licences).
new licence, resulting in a loss in snake controllers across
the state and therefore a greater number of snakes being
DEPI values the service provided by current holders of the Wildlife Controller Type 2
killed.
Licence with respect to the humane control of reptiles in circumstances where they pose a
human safety risk. So existing snake catchers are not deterred from continuing in this role,
an additional discount has been applied to the licence fee to reflect the public service
provided by these licence holders. This will reduce the annual licence fee from $377 to
$250.60.
There are concerns that the methods of taking or
Methods of take, control or destruction of wildlife under the Wildlife Controller Licence
destroying wildlife approved under the Wildlife Controller
are specified in the licence. Accordingly DEPI has ensured that the authorised methods are
Licence might permit a method that is inconsistent with
consistent with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and its regulations.
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 or its regulations.
18
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
6.16
The merger of the previous Wildlife Controller Licences
(Type 1 and Type 2) into one will result in an increase in the
number of controllers licensed to catch birds and mammals
listed in Schedule 6, resulting in adverse impacts on these
species.
While the combining of the Wildlife Controller Type 1 and Type 2 categories does mean
that existing licence holders will be able to control more species of wildlife under their
licence, it doesn't mean every Wildlife Controller Licence holder will be authorised or will
choose to use the full entitlement under their licence.
6.17
The merger of the previous Wildlife Controller Licences
(Type 1 and Type 2) into one means that licence holders
with experience in catching possums will be allowed to also
catch venomous snakes which could pose a safety problem
due to inexperience and lack of knowledge.
The duty of care to ensure that employers and their staff have the appropriate skills and
training to undertake their area of work sits with the business or employer. Furthermore,
while the combining of the Wildlife Controller Type 1 and Type 2 categories does mean
that more licence holders will be able to control more species of wildlife under their
licence, it does not mean every Wildlife Controller Licence holder will be authorised or will
choose to use the full entitlement under their licence.
Wildlife Dealer Licence
6.18
6.19
Disposal of dead wildlife by incineration or burial is no
longer practical (unless there is a regime in place with
respect to the collection of biological waste). Licence
holders should have the option of disposing of dead wildlife
as part of their general waste in accordance with any
council or health department requirements (e.g. double bag
and dispose of in commercial waste bin).
The merger of the current Wildlife Dealer Licences (Type 1
and Type 2) into one licence will result in an increase in the
number of dealers licensed to trade in vulnerable or
threatened species of birds.
Further assessment found that disposal of wildlife as part of general waste collection was
not feasible to include in the proposed regulations as it would be difficult to monitor or
enforce. There is also a concern that disposal in local council tips of dead wildlife that died
as a result of disease could result in the spread of the disease due to other animals feeding
on the carcasses.
The combining of the Wildlife Dealer Licences into one category does not change the
restriction that these species of wildlife must only be from legal, captive-bred sources,
therefore it will not have any adverse impacts on the conservation of the species in the
wild. Note that it is an offence under the Wildlife Act 1975 to take wildlife from the wild,
including threatened species.
19
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
6.20
Ensuring appropriate educational information is provided to
private wildlife keepers is important to underpin the
welfare of wildlife kept under a licence. It is recommended
that further consideration is given to the development of
information resources where gaps exist.
Noted.
Wildlife Demonstrator Licence
6.21
The requirement that venomous snakes must be
demonstrated from a pit is appropriate, however, I
question the height of 1.1 meters. The target audience for
demonstrations is largely children aged 3 - 6 years old; the
average height of a 5 year is 1.1 meters. Therefore most
children of this age group would not be able to see over the
side of the enclosure without putting their hands on the
side and pulling themselves up, which is a greater safety
risk. I suggest that 0.8 meters is sufficient in height.
The suggestion was further investigated. It was found that Taipan and Eastern Brown
Snakes can easily jump over a 0.8m wall, therefore in the interest of safety, the decision
was made to maintain the 1.1m height requirement in the regulations.
6.22
It is requested that the requirement that Wildlife
Demonstrator Licence holders must keep newly obtained
wildlife for a period of six months before it can be disposed
(sold, etc.) be abolished. Often animals that are thought to
be suitable for demonstration upon purchase turn out to be
unsuitable due to temperament. With this restriction in
place, animals unsuitable for demonstration can be
potentially over-used resulting in stress of the animal and a
public safety risk, or can be a financial burden to the licence
holder until the six months is past and they are able to sell
them.
While the proposed regulations restrict Wildlife Demonstrators from disposing of newly
obtained wildlife for a period of six months, it is acknowledged that there may be
circumstances where it may be appropriate to allow this to occur in a shorter time frame.
Therefore the regulations allow the licence holder to seek written approval for this activity
from DEPI. These requests will be assessed on a case by case basis.
6.23
Wildlife Demonstrators are uniquely empowered to reach
the Victorian public with a range of messages on the
biology, ecology and conservation of Australia's native flora
and fauna. All Wildlife Demonstrators should be qualified
with some form of degree or certification from an
Suggestion was noted, however, it would be an increased administrative burden on licence
holders. This is required to be assessed and advertised in a RIS process. For the new
regulations, the RIS process has already been completed, therefore the regulations cannot
impose a requirement of this sort at this stage.
20
Issue #
6.24
Comment / Issue raised
educational institution. This will raise the standard and level
of competency of Demonstrators in Victoria. Suggest this be
made a condition of permit.
Currently demonstrators in Victoria are not required by
DEPI to hold public liability insurance prior to applying for
the licence. Should an injury occur during a demonstration
whilst uninsured, the cost and grief can be enormous.
Suggest this be made a condition of permit.
Response
Suggestion was noted. The responsibility to ensure a business or person has appropriate
insurance sits with the business owner or person. Any change to this in the new
regulations would be an increased administrative burden on licence holders and would
require assessment and advertisement in a RIS process. For the new regulations, the RIS
process has already been completed, therefore the regulations cannot impose a
requirement of this sort at this stage.
Noted.
6.25
There are a number of current Wildlife Demonstrators in
Victoria who don't do the minimum required number of
demonstrations in a six month period. The requirement to
maintain a bound book recording details of demonstrations
is supported, however it needs to be enforced.
6.26
Can a Wildlife Demonstrator demonstrate with a dingo? Do A Wildlife Demonstrator can obtain approval to demonstrate with a dingo. This approval
they need a Dingo Licence as well to be able to do this, even will be specified in the licence.
though they are not being held privately but for commercial
purposes.
6.27
Support the increase in the Wildlife Demonstrator Licence
Fees are calculated in accordance with the Victoria's Cost Recovery Guidelines, and were
fee, and recommend it be raised higher still, as it will ensure set to cover the cost of administration and enforcement of the licensing system.
only operators of high standards take on the licence.
6.28
The purpose of a Wildlife Demonstrator Licence in the
regulations should include educating or education.
The prescribed category of Wildlife Demonstrator Licence in the proposed regulations
states that it is for the purpose of promoting an understanding of the ecology and
conservation of wildlife. This wording achieves the desired objectives and therefore does
not warrant a change.
21
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
Wildlife Displayer, Demonstrator and Dealer Licences
6.29
The provision of discounts for the Wildlife Displayer Licence
and Wildlife Demonstrator Licence and the use of wildlife as
an education tool is not consistent with the Australian
Animal Welfare Strategy or the Australian Code of Practice
for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. The
documents apply principles to minimise the number of
animals used in scientific studies and teaching, diminish
impacts on animals and to achieve an acceptable balance in
these circumstances.
Suggest that Wildlife Demonstrators and Displayers be
required to provide educational information on the species
in their displays or demonstrations to the public.
The demonstration of wildlife under a Wildlife Demonstrator and Wildlife Displayer
Licence is not considered to be for 'scientific purposes', therefore these documents do not
apply in these circumstance. Nevertheless, one of the objectives of the regulations is to
ensure that access and use of wildlife is done in a humane manner, and as such the
applicable codes of practice under the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act 1988 have been
incorporated into the regulations where appropriate.
6.31
Suggest that conditions for Wildlife Demonstrators and
Displayers should include the provision to display the
animals in a manner that provides for the health and
welfare of the animal.
A requirement to demonstrate and display wildlife in a manner that provides for their
health and welfare has been incorporated into the conditions of the Wildlife Demonstrator
and Wildlife Displayer Licence in the regulations.
6.32
Why not have the same fee for Wildlife Displayers, Wildlife
Demonstrators and Wildlife Dealers? All of these licence
categories make money from native wildlife one way or the
other, and a consistent high fee will ensure only those who
are serious about animal welfare and conservation will
obtain a licence.
Fees are calculated in accordance with the Victoria's Cost Recovery Guidelines, and were
set for each licence category to cover the cost of administration and enforcement. Hence
the fees vary across licence categories.
6.30
This is implied already as the prescribed category of Wildlife Demonstrator Licence in the
proposed regulations states that it is for the purpose of promoting an understanding of the
ecology and conservation of wildlife.
Wildlife Farmer Licence
6.33
Wildlife should not be farmed, particularly species such as
kangaroos and emus. Kangaroos cannot be yarded, herded
or transported as are domestic livestock. Emu farms means
that emus become another exotic meat source and end up
bred in captivity, which is against their nomadic nature.
Subjecting emus to transport is cruel and inhumane. The
Under the regulations, the Wildlife Farmer Licence only authorises licensees to farm emus.
This must be done in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Husbandry of Captive
Emus, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986, to ensure their welfare is not
compromised.
22
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
practice of farming of wildlife and the use of their body
parts ignores the most basic behavioural and dietary needs
of wildlife.
6.34
Wildlife farming industries need standards provided for
minimum conduct in the feeding, care, housing and welfare
of animals being farmed.
The regulations have been amended to require that wildlife licence holders must comply
with any applicable codes of practice under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986
or the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
Wildlife Taxidermy Licence
6.35
The proposed combining of the Taxidermist Licence
categories and resultant fee increase for current Type 1
licence holders should not occur. I have no interest in
taxiderming additional species covered by the current Type
2 licence, nor are specimens for taxidermy readily available
to justify the increased fee.
Fees have been assessed and re-set in accordance with Victoria’s Cost Recovery Guidelines
During the cost benefit assessment in the RIS, it was found that the administrative and
compliance effort for processing licences was the same for the sub-types of some
commercial licence categories (e.g. Wildlife Taxidermist Type 1 and Type 2 licences). As
such, it was decided to streamline and simplify the licence categories by combining these
commercial licence categories into one licence given the fees were to be the same anyway.
The revenue raised from these fees will be used to recover costs associated with
administering and managing the licensing system and the costs of compliance and
enforcement of the proposed regulations.
6.36
The restrictions for sourcing animals for taxidermy under
the regulations are too limiting for a sustainable business.
Why can't taxidermists source animals that have died from
other sources such as from road kill, or from wildlife
rehabilitators or veterinarians who have to euthanase
wildlife? This could be monitored via various systems to
ensure animals are not taken from the wild, such as record
keeping, tagging, a royalty system or a bag limit. If allowed,
small taxidermist operators could warrant the high cost of
the licence.
It is not considered appropriate to expand the types of legal sources from which a Wildlife
Taxidermist can source specimens for taxidermy to include sources such as wildlife that
have died as a result of a road accident or while in the possession of a wildlife
rehabilitator. DEPI requires a means of tracking and monitoring the source of wildlife for
the purposes of taxidermy to ensure wildlife is not taken from the wild illegally. The
sources suggested would be difficult to monitor.
23
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
6.37
I see people taxiderming natives and deer with no license
and taxidermied native wildlife continues to be sold online,
so I know my fees are not going to into policing the policies
and regulations.
Fees have been set to cover the cost of both administering and enforcing the proposed
regulations and wildlife licensing system. Anyone who is aware of persons carrying out
illegal activities relating to wildlife should report the offence to the DEPI Customer Service
Centre on 136 186 so that the matter can be investigated by DEPI compliance officers.
6.38
The Taxidermist Licence is limiting for people who do
taxidermy as a form of art, because the restriction that the
wildlife can only be displayed in the premises specified in
the licence prevents artists from displaying their work in an
exhibition or show.
While the proposed regulations restrict the display of taxidermied wildlife at the premises
specified in the licence, they also allow the licence holder to seek written approval for this
activity from DEPI. These requests will be assessed on a case by case basis.
24
Schedules
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
7.1
Attachment E to the RIS, which lists the proposed changes
to the Schedules, has incorrectly identified the common
and species names of the Carpet or Diamond Python
subspecies.
DEPI acknowledges that this was an administrative error in the RIS itself. The actual
Schedules to the regulations have the correct taxonomic classifications of these species.
7.2
Eleven species of wildlife were requested to be added to
the Schedules or moved to a less restricted Schedule.
Assessment of the additional nominations resulted in four new species that were approved
to be added to the schedules, two that were approved to be moved to a different
schedule, and five that were rejected. These include:
Birds
- Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) - added to Schedule 3A
- Inland Dotteral (Peltohyas australis) - added to Schedule 3B
- Sacred Kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus) - added to Schedule 3B
- Eastern Rosella (Platycercus eximius) - added to Schedule 4B
- Plumheaded Finch (Neochmia modesta) - added to Schedule 4B
- Red-backed Fairy Wren (Malurus melanocephalus) - not listed
- Striate Grass Wren (Amytornis striatus) - not listed
Reptiles
- Banded Knob-tailed Gecko (Nephurus wheeleri) - not listed
- Down's Bearded Dragon (Pogona henrylawsoni) - kept on Schedule 3B
- Mitchell's Water Monitor (Varanus mitchelli) - added to Schedule 3B
- Bearded Dragon (Pogona barbatus) - kept on Schedule 2
7.3
There should be no new wildlife species add to the
schedules for keeping or trading as it is immoral and
unethical. Native animals should not be kept in captivity as
they should not be confined to cages and need habitat and
specialised food sources to live ethically and naturally.
There are already a large number of domestic pets available
and increasing the species available will put additional
pressure on the 'pet-rescue' centres.
Under the Wildlife Act 1975, all wildlife is protected and it is an offence to take wildlife
from the wild, unless with an appropriate licence or authorisation. In Victoria, keeping and
trading wildlife is permitted where a captive-bred population of wildlife already exists and
provided it is done in a responsible, ethical and humane manner. This includes meeting the
husbandry and welfare requirements of the animals. Species are only added to the
schedules when certain rigorous criteria are met, such as numbers already available in
captivity in Australia, conservation status of the species, potential impacts captive wildlife
may have on wild populations if they escape from captivity, and how easy or difficult they
are to care for.
25
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
7.4
Schedule 4A means there's no licence required for
commercial trade or possession. There will be little
regulation for these species and no guarantee of their
welfare or specialised social, spatial and environmental
needs.
Species listed on schedule 4A are species that are commonly kept and are very simple to
look after (e.g. budgerigar and cockatiels), therefore there is little justification for requiring
strict regulation around these species. However, anyone in possession of these species is
still subject to prosecution under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 for matters
of cruelty or inhumane treatment.
Miscellaneous
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
8.1
The harvest of native animals from their native habitat is
prohibited under the Wildlife Act 1975, and this should
remain the case.
In Victoria, it an offence under the Wildlife Act 1975 to take protected wildlife from the
wild without the appropriate licence. The proposed regulations only authorise wildlife to
be taken from the wild with a Wildlife Controller Licence that has the additional
authorisation to take three species of bird (Sulphur-crested Cockatoos, Galahs and Longbilled Corellas) if they are causing damage to property. In this case, DEPI monitors the take
by requiring that each bird be tagged and a royalty paid to DEPI. Birds are also only
allowed to be sold to holders of a Wildlife Dealer Licence. In no other circumstance are
wildlife able to taken from the wild. The regulations mostly authorise the possession and
trade of captive bred wildlife already in trade.
8.2
The keeping and trading of wildlife must not be permitted
as native animals are harder to care for than domestic
animals, and government cannot be sure that species are
not taken illegally from the wild. Commercial wildlife
industries should not be supported as they are contrary to
policies around conservation of wildlife and animal
welfare.
In Victoria, and across Australia, there is an existing industry for the captive possession,
breeding and trading of wildlife. The regulations ensure that keepers and traders maintain
ethical, safe and responsible treatment of native wildlife.
By regulating this industry, the government is able to monitor trade of captive bred
wildlife, which in turn assists in detecting unauthorised take of wildlife from the wild and
illegal wildlife trade for which enforcement action can be taken.
26
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
8.3
The breeding of captive populations of wildlife is open to
corruption, with concerns for inbreeding and dubious
breeding practises (e.g. puppy farms).
The regulations ensure that animal welfare is not compromised as a result of the wildlife
possession, use and trade industry in Victoria. Furthermore, the regulations include a
requirement that all wildlife licence holders must comply with applicable codes of practice
under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
8.4
The private keeping of wildlife should be accompanied by
information supplied to the new owner on the
requirements of the species. The novelty might fade
quickly for new owners resulting in animals dying in
captivity due to ignorance of the owner.
The regulations require that, when selling wildlife, Wildlife Dealer Licence holders must
provide information to the new owner on the requirements for proper feeding, care,
housing and welfare of the species.
8.5
Allowing the keeping and trading of wildlife removes DEPI
(former DSE) staff from their real purpose of protecting
and preserving wildlife communities.
Refer to the response to 8.2 above.
8.6
The processing of wildlife for commercial benefit should be
opposed and will lead to the creation of a Victorian
commercial Kangaroo harvesting industry linked with the
current Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) system.
The Authority to Control Wildlife (ATCW) system is provided for under the Wildlife Act
1975, not the regulations. Under this system land owners can apply for an authorisation to
use control methods to manage problems or damage on their property caused by wildlife.
These authorisations do not provide for commercial harvesting of wildlife.
8.7
A commercial Kangaroo harvesting industry should not be
allowed.
The regulations do not provide for a commercial kangaroo harvesting industry.
8.8
With the likelihood of more licences issued and more
animals to be monitored, there is likely to be a need for
increased compliance activity to ensure effective
regulation in relation to wildlife welfare.
The regulations include 15 new species on the schedules that can be kept and traded, and
reduce the regulatory restriction around seven other species that can now be kept under
either a Wildlife Basic Licence or without a licence. These, and other, changes to the
regulations are not expected to create more work for DEPI's compliance officers.
Furthermore, combining of licence categories has the benefit of streamlining
administration of licences, while also simplifying the licensing system for current or new
licence holders.
27
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
8.9
Random inspections by compliance officers should focus
on property owners who wish to control wildlife, before
they are able to lethally do this.
Authorisations issued under the Wildlife Act 1975 to landowners to control problem
wildlife are outside of the scope of the regulations. However, in most cases, a DEPI
compliance officer will inspect the property to determine the validity of an application for
an authorisation.
8.10
The proposed regulations do not adequately address
monitoring and enforcement issues. With an increased
demand for keeping wildlife, it is logical to expect illegal
operations might increase. Why didn't the new licence fees
provide for an expanded surveillance program.
Along with issuing licences for the legal possession and trade of wildlife, DEPI also has a
compliance role to enforce legislation, by responding to public complaints, conducting
investigations, issuing fines and prosecuting cases through the courts. This is to help deter
and reduce illegal activities, such as the illegal take of wildlife from national parks and
other bushland areas. The licence fees in the regulations were revised based on
compliance and administrative costs of the wildlife licensing system.
8.11
The RIS and Regulations are silent on the matter of keeping
of deer defined as wildlife under the Wildlife Act 1975.
What is DEPI's policy position on the keeping of deer and
the extent to which the regulations will apply?
Under the regulations deer may be held for private purposes without a licence, may be
sold by a Wildlife Dealer or taxidermied by the holder of a Wildlife Taxidermist Licence.
This position has not changed from the Wildlife Regulations 2002 (previous regulations).
8.12
Deer are not Australian wildlife.
While deer are not native wildlife, the regulations are governed by the definition of
wildlife under the Wildlife Act 1975. This definition includes all kinds of deer, and other
game species, that have been declared to be wildlife in a Governor in Council Order
published in the Victorian Government Gazette.
8.13
I congratulate DEPI (former DSE) in taking the important
steps towards valuing, and through valuing conserving, our
wildlife. The proposed regulations reflect important
strategies encapsulated more broadly in the Conservation
through Sustainable Use agenda advocated by the IUCN.
Noted.
8.14
The proposed Wildlife Regulations adopt safe, responsible
and ethical wildlife possession, trade and use in Victoria
and should be supported by government. It is good to see
DEPI taking a common sense approach to the regulations.
Noted.
28
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
8.15
The RIS is thorough and explains the costs and benefits of
the proposed changes to the regulations.
Noted.
8.16
DEPI compliance staff need to be able to issue
infringement penalties for unlicensed possession of wildlife
and specimens, particularly for species common in the
captive trade. The consequence should be commensurate
with the offence.
This issue is outside of the scope of the regulations review, as the offence to take
protected wildlife is within the Wildlife Act 1975.
8.17
There is an exemption in the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act 1986 which applies to activities carried out in
accordance with the Wildlife Act 1975, Wildlife Regulations
and related licences or authorisation orders. The Wildlife
Regulations or the licenses themselves need to reference
compliance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act
1986 and its relevant codes of practice to ensure there are
no gaps relating to the animal welfare.
The regulations now include a requirement that all wildlife licence holders must comply
with applicable codes of practice under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and
the Domestic Animals Act 1994.
8.18
The RIS fails to include a risk assessment, as required by
government guidelines.
The multi-criteria analysis conducted on the various options assessed under the RIS takes
risk into account. The RIS was also deemed adequate by the Victorian Competition and
Efficiency Commission as meeting the requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act
1994 and the Victorian Guide to Regulations.
8.19
The period of consultation was inadequate and failure to
advertise in the Age inexcusable. The RIS also fails to
disclose the concerns raised by stakeholders during earlier
consultation, and fails to list wildlife groups, environmental
groups and the community among the groups affected.
The RIS consultation period and methods of advertising for the draft regulations were
above the minimum requirements set out in the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. DEPI
made every effort to consult with a wide range of stakeholders in the development of the
draft regulations and RIS. The RIS was also deemed adequate by the Victorian Competition
and Efficiency Commission.
8.20
The RIS fails to include a user-friendly summary of the
issues likely to be of concern to the community
A Summary and Guide to the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was released along with
the RIS to provide members of the public with a more readable summary document.
29
Issue #
Comment / Issue raised
Response
8.21
The "use" of wildlife should only be for education and
conservation purposes and legislation should ensure this.
Allowing people to keep and trade in captive bred wildlife through a safe, sustainable and
ethical wildlife licencing system provides many social benefits to the Victorian community,
including educational benefits, fostering of an appreciation of environmental values, and
improved animal welfare outcomes.
8.22
Many species of wildlife are being pushed to the brink of
extinction, and clearly the existing legislation and policies
to protect wildlife in Victoria are not working. The Wildlife
Act 1975 needs to be upgraded to better guarantee species
protection, more native habitat for long-term survival and
interconnecting wildlife corridors.
Under the Wildlife Act 1975, all wildlife is protected and it is an offence to take wildlife
from the wild or damage wildlife habitat, unless it is with an appropriate licence or
authorisation. While the regulations cover the licensing of possession and trade of captive
bred wildlife, they also include specific provisions to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat.
8.23
The regulations should include rules preventing wildlife
foster carers and shelter operators from keeping animals
to be released on premises where there are dogs and cats,
as habituation will cause them to not fear these or related
predators.
This issue is outside of the scope of the regulations review, as wildlife shelter operators
and foster carers are licensed under section 28A of the Wildlife Act 1975, not under the
regulations.
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne, June 2013
© The State of Victoria Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
ISBN 978-174287-859-1(Online/pdf)
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone DEPI Customer Service Centre136186, email customer.service@depi.vic.gov.au via the National Relay Service on 133 677
www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available in on the internet at www.depi.vic.gov.au
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee
30 that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore
disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.