CHAPTER 17 - COMPANION ANIMALS
(PETS)
17.1 A range of views on the keeping of native animals as pets was expressed in submissions to the
inquiry. At one end of the spectrum was the view that people should not keep pets at all, often
expressed by animal liberation groups. Then, while some submissions accepted that domesticated
animals could be kept as companion animals, they rejected the suggestion that native species should be
kept as pets, primarily because native animals were impossible to keep adequately in captivity, resulting
in animal welfare issues.
17.2 Opposing this, was the view that some native animals made very good pets, as evidenced by the
fact that thousands of people in Australia already keep and breed in captivity many species of native
mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, fish and insects. Finally, at the other end of the range, was the view that
native animals should be kept as pets in preference to exotic species such as cats and dogs because,
once they escaped into the bush, they became predators on many native species. [1] The view was also
expressed that all pet owners should be licensed, whether they have exotic or native animals in their
care. [2]
The Importance of Pets
17.3 With the exception of the views held by animal liberation groups, most people agree that
companion animals, or pets, play an important role in many people's lives. Recent research has shown
that Australia has the highest rate of pet ownership in the world with about 66 per cent of households
having some type of companion animal and 83 per cent of Australians having had a pet at some time.
Pets have been found to have an overall beneficial effect on the health of their keepers. The companion
animal industry employs some 30,000 people and has an annual turnover of about $2.2 billion. [3]
17.4 The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Australia Ltd (PIJAC) is concerned that the current
legislation relating to conservation of wildlife is both counterproductive to conservation needs and
damages the companion animal industry in its severity without achieving any conservation outcome. [4]
PIJAC believes that the pet industry has a legitimate role to play in the conservation of native species
through the encouragement of captive breeding programs and the keeping of suitable species and, by
doing so, giving wildlife a commercial value which will ensure its survival.
Native Species Do Not Make Good Pets
17.5 Strong evidence was given to the Committee from several groups that many native animals, and
particularly marsupials, do not make good pets. These groups included the Wildlife Foundation (ACT),
[5] Nascaring Wildlife Carers, [6] the Native Bird Liberation Alliance [7], the Antivivisection Union [8]
and several branches of the organisation Animal Liberation. [9]
17.6 As argued by the Wildlife Foundation (ACT), domestic animals have evolved with people over
thousands of years whereas native mammals in Australia have not. With the exception of dingos,
Aboriginal people did not attempt to domesticate any animals and since European settlement there has
not been any concerted effort to selectively breed any endemic species as a companion animal. The
Foundation argued that native animals would suffer as pets because not enough was known about their
behavioural traits, social needs and proper nutrition and this would inadvertently lead to suffering by the
animal. [10] While domestic pets such as dogs, cats and ponies have been selected over thousands of
generations making them suitable as companions, native animals have not been subject to this type of
selection and most do not naturally have any of the characteristics which make then suitable for
immediate domestication. Further, there are frequent cases of domesticated animals suffering abuse as
pets and this would only increase with wild animals which are much more difficult to care for. [11]
17.7 The Foundation claimed that many marsupials do not make good pets because:
- they are particularly vulnerable to stress;
- their behaviour at maturity may be aggressive and difficult to manage;
- they are often difficult to keep in small areas; and
- they are generally incompatible with domesticated pets (cats and dogs).
17.8 As described by the Foundation, there is now a considerable amount of information about the
dietary requirements of the most common marsupials (possums, macropods and wombats). However,
while most marsupials were well adapted to extreme and harsh environmental conditions, they could
became highly stressed when handled by humans which suppressed the immune system resulting in either
death or prolonged illness. Stress also caused diarrhoea which presented a significant management
problem to the keeper because marsupials cannot be toilet trained. When chased, many marsupials
suffer from myopathy (a breakdown of the muscle tissue), which can result in rapid death.
17.9 Through road-kills to females carrying pouch young, many marsupials are raised by carers from
tiny hairless babies to mature adults. While young and dependent on the keeper, marsupials can make
manageable and entertaining pets. However, once they reach maturity they revert to wild animals and no
degree of care and affection from humans will prevent this. Kangaroos, possums and wombats can inflict
serious injury to people and will damage household furniture and fittings if kept inside past the time they
reach independence. Once sexually mature, large over-humanised marsupials can become confused
about their sexual partners and thus present a considerable threat to their carers. The release of such
animals into the wild is not a realistic proposition as captive raised marsupials have not learnt the
necessary survival skills. [12]
17.10 Large marsupials are difficult to contain. Even if high fences are constructed, adult kangaroos will
damage themselves trying to escape, particularly if threatened by dogs or people. Some of the smaller
macropods, such as Tamar wallabies, can climb trees, fences and piles of wood or refuse. Wombats are
highly adept at digging and will excavate under any structure erected to confine them, or will use their
massive strength to push through obstacles. Marsupials and dogs are highly incompatible and, given the
very high level of dog ownership in Australia, the Wildlife Foundation does not believe that 'marsupials
would stand a chance as pets'. [13]
17.11 The Wildlife Foundation believes that if legislation were introduced to allow the keeping of native
animals as pets, there will be 'untold suffering of animals and untold heartbreak for many
well-intentioned, caring people'. [14] Because there is a lack of information about native animals as pets,
it is likely that a large number will be abandoned or relinquished once they become unmanageable adults.
[15] The Foundation suggested that instead of having native animals as pets, people interested in caring
for them should become involved in organisations such as WIRES or the Wildlife Foundation. In
addition, the Foundation suggested that people in urban and semi-urban areas should be more tolerant
and learn about the wildlife that lived around their homes, even to the extent of providing nesting sites for
tree dwelling animals such as birds and possums. [16]
17.12 The Foundation opposed the trend emerging in other states for wildlife to be sold in pet shops for
a number of reasons. First, the responsibilities of pet shop owners are not well defined and would
appear to have no responsibility to ensure the ongoing welfare of the pet once sold. Second, there is
insufficient public information about the specific needs of native animals as pets. Third, most marsupials
(particularly possums and wombats) are largely nocturnal in activity and thus their activity patterns would
be out of synchronisation with those of their owners.
17.13 Animal Liberation (Victoria) is very much opposed to the use of native animals as pets, claiming it
its submission that:
People procuring these unusual species for 'pets' often do so as an indication of social standing, or for a
talking point. The animal's food and behavioural needs are often ignored, or not even known in the first
place. Owners prefer cheap and easy method of feeding and housing. Many animals end up dumped and
abandoned or sold to a succession owners. They are socially deprived of members of their own species,
isolated and live in unsuitable climates and environments. [17]
17.14 This view was also supported by ANZFAS [18] and by Animal Liberation (Western Australia), a
representative of which stated uncategorically in evidence to the Committee that 'wildlife should not be
exploited as pets'. [19] The Native Bird Liberation Alliance commented that the use of native animals in
the pet trade was solely to supply luxury markets with unnecessary product. [20] Animal Liberation
(Victoria) was critical of the RIRDC report which had concluded that a commercial industry based on
smaller species of birds and reptiles may be viable because 'animal welfare concerns are less likely to
apply' and asked 'Why would animal welfare concerns be less just because the animal is smaller in size?'
[21] Animal Liberation maintained that there are animal welfare issues related to the keeping of any pet,
regardless of size or shape: 'They are all sentient beings with their own needs for appropriate food and
environment'. [22]
17.15 Animal Liberation (ACT) claimed that Australians had an 'abysmal' record in relation to the
welfare of pets as evidenced by the fact that many thousands of pets were euthanased in refuges each
year after being abandoned by their owners. Thousands more suffered cruelty or neglect at the hands of
ignorant or careless owners. Information from the RSPCA supports the proposition that many native
animals, if sold as pets, will end up neglected, discarded or euthanased. According to figures released
for 1996-97, a total of 158,109 abandoned or lost animals were received by the RSPCA that year. Of
this total, 69,956 were dogs and 62,163 were cats but only 15.3% of dogs and 1.8% of cats were
reclaimed by their owners. Of the total number of animals received, 5,583 were native species, almost
half of which were euthanased (2,254). Some 6,577 birds were received, of which 3,245 were
euthanased. In that year alone, the RSPCA conducted 34,546 investigations into allegations of cruelty to
animals across Australia. Statistics collected by the RSPCA also show that there has been a 60%
increase in pets received at shelters over the last four years. [23]
17.16 In evidence to the Committee, RSPCA Director, Dr Hugh Wirth stated:
The relevance to this [summary of statistics] is to point out that Australians are not very good at looking
after domestic animals – where their husbandry is known reasonably well – as compared with native
animals, where we know the public knows very little, proportionally. [24]
17.17 Other organisations which opposed the use of native animals as pets included the Sunshine Coast
Environment Council and the Queensland Conservation Council.
Some Native Species Can Make Good Pets
17.18 Despite the evidence that some native animals do not make good pets, a range of native species
are kept in people's homes either as companion animals or as part of amateur collections. South
Australian wildlife consultant Mr Harald Ehmann believes that there is now sufficient information about
the biology and conservation status of many mammal and reptile species for some of them to be kept by
private individuals. In terms of the living requirements of native animals, Mr Ehmann commented that, as
with conventional pets, each species has specific needs that have to be taken into account, but once
those requirements are understood there are few problems. [25] Mr Ehmann also noted that the hobby
of keeping reptiles and frogs was quite high in city areas because they were much easier to keep than
conventional pets (cats and dogs), having lesser maintenance requirements and presenting fewer noise
and nuisance problems. [26] The view of the CYHS was even more direct, claiming in its submission
that: 'the statement that our animals are too difficult too keep is obviously rubbish'. [27]
17.19 The question then arises whether there are some species of native animals which make 'good' pets
and whether, having regard to animal welfare considerations, the keeping of native animals as pets
should be promoted or discouraged.
17.20 The South Australian Government takes a pragmatic view of this and argued in its submission that
the consequences of prohibition are likely to be non-compliance and the demand for additional
resources to manage the illegal trade. Resources then become increasingly directed towards controlling
illegal activities and away from legitimate conservation needs. The South Australian Government
promotes the concept of private ownership of native animals as long as the animal has been legally
acquired and the person has sufficient knowledge and appropriate facilities. Most native animals can
therefore be kept in South Australia under a tiered permit system which provides a framework that
identifies legally acquired native animals from those illegally obtained. In 1997, there were about 8,000
permit holders in South Australia. The benefits of this approach, the South Australian Government
believes, has been an increase in public awareness of nature conservation issues. [28]
17.21 Species of native animals which can be held privately in South Australia include a number of
marsupials: the hopping mouse (Notomys alexis), the fat-tailed dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicordata)
and the brushtail bettong (Bettongia pencillata), of which some 1000 to 1500 are held privately; as
well as a number of species of reptiles and frogs, such as pythons, dragon lizards, gecko lizards,
green-tree frogs and white-legged tree frogs. [29]
17.22 The keeping of snakes and lizards as pets was promoted by a number of other people and
organisations in submissions to the Committee. For example, Mr Bradley Oliver from Gawler in South
Australia suggested that Woma pythons (Aspidites ramsayi) made ideal pets: 'They are a moderately
large python which thrive in habitats extremes of hot and cold, dry and occasionally very wet. They are
renown for their hardiness and docile nature in captivity'. [30] When asked by Senator O'Brien: 'How
friendly can reptiles get?' Mr Cameron McTavish, Past President of PIJAC, replied: 'They are quite
friendly. They get to recognise their owner. You can see Americans taking iguanas for walks on a lead.
They do become acceptable pets. They can be contained easily, and they suit an apartment. They bring
a little bit of the outdoors environment inside'. [31]
17.23 According to Associate Professor Michael Tyler, the green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) makes a
particularly good pet. The species is abundant in the wet areas of northern Australia and it is the most
popular tree frog kept in captivity by zoos and private keepers throughout the world. Unlike almost all
other frogs, this species responds well to people and does not attempt to escape when handled. The
frogs are relatively easy to keep and individuals can be kept as pets for up to 20 years. Breeding is
readily established and healthy offspring can be produced, provided the breeding adults come from the
same geographic locality. [32]
17.24 A number of people in Australia believe that it is ironic that there are such strict regulations on
keeping native animals as pets and no restrictions on keeping exotic animals when in fact exotic animals,
and particularly cats, have caused considerable damage to Australia's wildlife. As described by amateur
biologist, Mr Lyall Naylor of Cairns:
I go to the issue of keeping domestic animals as opposed to keeping native animals. … For native
animals, a permit is required but rarely approved. There is no permit to keep cats in most states and a
minimal one in South Australia. … No transfer records are required for cats but they are for native
animals. No interstate import-export permits are required for cats from both states. There are no cage
limitations for cats, but they are enforced, or there is pressure for them, for native animals. No periodic
returns are required for cats but are for native animals. Cats are readily available in pet shops or
privately. Pet shop dealerships require licences for species of native animals. Public display licences are
not required for cats but for native animals in some states. I suggest to you, looking at my local situation
in the Daintree region, that you could have somebody move into that area with a dozen cats and there is
absolutely nothing \DB\PGN\271anybody could do about it. The impact cats have on native wildlife is
readily recognised. [33]
17.25 Finally, there is a strong feeling among some people, and amateur biologists in particular, that the
prohibitionist approach of wildlife authorities to keeping native animals as pets or for amateur research
purposes, limits the fostering of kinship between Australians and their native fauna and limits the
education of children about Australian wildlife (see also Paragraph 6.54). Instead of developing an
understanding of animals such as snakes, without direct contact, many Australians have little or no
respect for them and disregard the fact that they are protected species. [34]
Australian Animals Kept As Pets Overseas
17.26 There is a very large amount of evidence, particularly on the Internet, that a broad variety of
native Australian animals is kept as pets in overseas countries. Many Australian birds are kept in aviaries
in Europe and America, including budgerigars, finches cockatoos, galahs and parrots. Reptiles and frogs
are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in America, and even some mammals have found their
way overseas. [35]
17.27 For example, despite a complete ban on the export of sugar gliders (Petaurus breviceps) from
Australia for many years, this species is now popular as a pet in America. The explanation for this,
according to Ruth's Sugar Glider Page, is that the animals in the United States are descendent from
gliders imported from other places, mostly Indonesia. [36] At the moment they are considered "exotic"
in the US and a federal licence is required to sell them. It is illegal to own them in some states, notably
California. However, they may soon be reclassified by the Department of Agriculture as 'pocket pets'
which would mean that small scale breeders would no longer need to have a licence. According to
'Ruth', the advantages of sugar gliders as pets are numerous: they are intelligent, playful, inquisitive, cute,
they are easy to feed, relatively clean, don't smell bad, don't have fleas, don't need vaccinations and are
inexpensive to keep (see also Box: Pocket Pets in America). Sugar gliders and at least one rock
wallaby have been found for sale in pet shops in Tokyo. [37]
Industry Potential
17.28 According to PIJAC, there is 'huge' potential in the companion animal industry both to expand
commercially and to assist in conservation of rare or endangered species. [38] In evidence to the
Committee, PIJAC suggested a system of licensed breeding and sale of certain native animals. Licensing
conditions could include the supply of captive breeding data to a central agency, a levy on sales to be
returned to conservation projects and a progeny release program. [39] Retailers would have to be
accredited and would have certain responsibilities to inform potential buyers about the care of the animal
being purchased.
17.29 In its submission to the inquiry, PIJAC supplied details of the ways in which the companion animal
industry could expand using native animals. Such an expansion, PIJAC emphasised, would require
considerable changes to current regulations and a considerable change in attitude by government. PIJAC
also noted that these changes would only come about if animal welfare matters were also considered.
17.30 In terms of assistance to conservation, PIJAC noted that some of the many species in Australia
considered to be threatened or endangered are not likely to recover in the short term without
intervention. While rare in their natural habitat, some of these species have been successfully bred in
captivity and PIJAC argued that they may well become extinct if a commercial value is not placed on
them. Examples of mammals include the spinifex hopping mouse (Notomys alexis) and the plains rat
(Pseudomys australis) both of which occur in desert areas of South Australia. Examples of birds
include the princess parrot, the golden shouldered parrot, the hooded parrot and the Gouldian finch
which, although predicted to be extinct in the wild within 10 years, is abundant in aviaries and breeds
prolifically in captivity. [40]
17.31 With regard to amphibians and reptiles, PIJAC noted that while in some states herpetoculture has
become very popular (notably Victoria), other states ban even the sale of captive-bred animals (notably
Queensland). As noted in the submission by the CYHS, it is illegal to collect any animal from the wild
without a permit in Queensland, even very common species. The practical effect of this is that a child
who collects a few tadpoles in a jar is breaking the law. [41] PIJAC believes that captive breeding of
reptiles and trade in certain species of amphibians should be encouraged and facilitated by authorities.
17.32 Most states already allow the wild collection and sale of progeny from native freshwater fish and
PIJAC noted that the greatest threat to this group of animals came from habitat degradation, not over
zealous collection from hobbyists or licensed collectors. In fact, as shown by the example of the Lake
Eacham Rainbow fish which became extinct in the wild but was later found to still exist in several private
aquarium collections (see Paragraph 6.42), the aquarium industry can play an important role in
maintaining the biodiversity of Australia's freshwater fish. [42]
17.33 Marine fish and marine products are also used in the aquarium industry and their collection, mainly
in Queensland waters, is strictly controlled. Research has shown that the current level of collection has
not resulted in a significant depletion of stocks, partly because of the nature of the habitat and partly
because of the methods used for collecting. According to PIJAC, 'the marine aquarium fishery of
Australia is one, if not the most sustainable fishery in the world, and Australia leads the way as far as
catching methods and management policies are concerned. Many countries are now using Australian
catching methods as a role model as how fisheries should be conducted and managed'. [43]
17.34 With regard to birds, PIJAC believes that 'as a matter of urgency all laws, State and Federal,
relating to the ownership, breeding and sale of native birds should be reviewed with the aim of
encouraging the growth of aviculture as an effective method of maintaining biodiversity in Australia'. [44]
17.35 The most controversial aspect of PIJAC's submission relates to the keeping of native mammals as
companion animals. As with birds, PIJAC believes that changes to legislation and regulations to allow
the keeping of mammals that would contribute to conservation objectives are urgently needed. PIJAC
recommended that initially, species approved should be under 2 kg in body weight (the size of a cat or
less) and should have a proven 'petability' record, from previous breeding stocks. The species suggested
by PIJAC were: the spinifex hopping mouse, plains rat, flat tailed dunnart, long nosed bandicoot, eastern
striped bandicoot, chestnut mouse, sugar glider and quoll or native cat. All of these species are already
being sold in a number of states in Australia. [45]
Regulation of the Native Animal Pet Industry
17.36 The National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare (NCCAW) [46] recognises that there is
an increasing number of native species being kept as pets or in private collections. In addition to
recommending that a national regulatory framework be established, the NCCAW has recommended
that the following criteria be used to determine which species might be suitable as pets:
- easily adapted to captive state;
- ease of breeding in captivity;
- non-demanding husbandry (for example, seed eating birds);
- ability to meet the behavioural requirements of the animals in a captive situation;
- public safety (control of animals which could be a threat to people and other animals, such as
poisonous snakes);
- health risks (both to humans and other animals); and
- safety of the animal (protection from predation or injury by other animals if kept in a suburban
backyard).
17.37 The NCCAW also recommended that commercial breeding and trading operators be registered
and their activities covered by appropriate codes of conduct. As a general principal, the NCCAW
believes that the level of regulation applied to each species should be commensurate with the degree of
difficulty of maintaining that species. [47]
Summary and Conclusions
17.38 There are two main points of view in relation to the keeping of native animals as pets. First animal
rights groups opposed the keeping of native animals in captivity on the grounds of welfare. In addition,
groups of wildlife carers argued that in general native animals did not make good pets because they are
particularly vulnerable to stress, their behaviour at maturity may be aggressive and difficult to manage,
they are often difficult to keep in small areas and they are generally incompatible with domesticated pets.
Information from the RSPCA supported the proposition that many native animals, if sold as pets, would
end up neglected, discarded or euthanased.
17.39 In contrast, the pet industry and a number of individuals argued that some species can and do
make good pets. This view is supported by some state governments, notably South Australia which
allows a number of species of native marsupials to be kept (the hopping mouse, fat-tailed dunnart and
the brushtail bettong), as well as a number of species of reptiles and frogs (pythons, dragon lizards,
gecko lizards, green-tree frogs and white-legged tree frogs). A large number of native Australian animals
have found their way overseas and are now sold commercially throughout America and Europe.
17.40 According to the companion animal industry, there is a 'huge' potential both to expand
commercially and to assist in conservation of rare or endangered species. However, this would require a
considerable change in attitude by most governments and consequent changes to regulations.
BOX: Pocket Pets in America
The sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) has recently increased in popularity in America where it is
marketed as a 'pocket pet'. The Internet reveals numerous sites discussing sugar gliders, businesses
advertising the sale of sugar gliders and newsgroups exchanging information about the breeding and care.
There is a Sugar Glider Information Exchange which issues a US/Canada Breeder List. This list
includes 118 businesses which sell sugar gliders. Prices vary from $100 to $250 for single animals, and
from $300 to $600 per pair, plus shipping costs. Some businesses offer specialty products such as
special glider cages, 'Nutriglider' feeding systems and special pocketed T-shirts for carrying gliders. [48]
Comments from individual websites include:
- Ruth's Sugar Glider page which states: 'Sugar Gliders are fast becoming popular pets in the
United States, and anyone who has ever seen one can easily tell you why. Besides being
intelligent, playful, inquisitive, they are just darn cute'. [49]
- Critters USA On-Line which proclaims 'Sweet Pocket Pets. Sugar Gliders are, without a doubt,
the true pocket pet. A tame sugar glider is delighted to be in physical contact with its owner's
body'. [50]
- The Glider Information Network which happily states that 'Petaurus breviceps is a small
nocturnal animal from Australia'. [51]
- Sugar Glider FAQ describes 'BONDING. The time immediately after you bring your sugar
glider home is most important for bonding with it. The sociability of your glider will depend on
how you treat it …'. [52]
Footnotes
[1] Evidence, p. RRA&T 256; see also Submission No. 341.
[2] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1096.
[3] Evidence, p. RRA&T 690, see also: Australian Companion Animal Council 1995 The Power of
Pets - A summary of the wide-ranging benefits of companion animal ownership, ISBN
0646256882, and Health Cost Savings: The Impact of Pets on Australian Health Budgets
November 1995 Baker Medical Research Institute and The Centre for Public Policy (University of
Melbourne), ISBN 0949492167.
[4] Submission No. 332, Covering letter, p. 1.
[5] Submission No.s 319 & 320.
[6] Submission No. 297, p. 3.
[7] Submission No. 57.
[8] Submission No. 132.
[9] Submission No.s 35, 66 & 87.
[10] Submission No. 20 (p. 2), Submission No. 39.
[11] Submission No. 39.
[12] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1095.
[13] Submission No. 319, p. 3.
[14] Submission No. 319, p. 4.
[15] Submission No. 320 p. 4.
[16] Evidence, p. RRA&T 1099. In this regard, the Victorian Government has recently changed
legislation to allow people to legally trap possums which have moved into buildings. Trapped possums
must then be released within 50m of the site where it was trapped, or taken to a vet for euthanasia.
However, the Government has also introduced a program to educate people about 'living with possums'.
This program encourages people to put up nest boxes and provides information about the life history and
habits of possums (Evidence, p. RRA&T 933).
[17] Submission No. 87, p. 13.
[18] Submission No. 178, pp. 22-23.
[19] Evidence, p. RRA&T 540.
[20] Submission No. 57.
[21] Submission No. 87, p. 13.
[22] Submission No. 87, p. 14.
[23] Evidence, p. RRA&T 715; see also 'RSPCA National Statistics' tabled by the RSPCA in
Melbourne on Tuesday 14 October 1997.
[24] Evidence, p. RRA&T 935.
[25] Evidence, p. RRA&T 608.
[26] Evidence, p. RRA&T 600.
[27] Submission No. 308, p. 5.
[28] Submission No. 318, p. 25. However, it should be noted that it is not legal to keep most of these
species in other states.
[29] Evidence, p. RRA&T 606, 608; Submission No. 91, p. 3.
[30] Submission No. 119, p. 1; see also Evidence, p. RRA&T 594.
[31] Evidence, p. RRA&T 695.
[32] Tyler, M J 1996 Frogs as Pets - A Guide to Keeping the Australian Green Tree Frog, Graphic
Print Group, South Australia.
[33] Evidence, p. RRA&T 270.
[34] Evidence, p. RRA&T 270.
[35] Submission No.s 1 & 116; Evidence, p. RRA&T 826ff.
[36] http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/regrove/ (Note, however, while it is possible that sugar gliders have
come from Indonesia (most likely Irian Jaya), it is also possible, and quite probable, that some have
come from Australia).
[37] Sydney Morning Herald 21 May 1998 'The illegal pet trade that makes a killing'. The rock
wallaby was on sale for AUS$900 and the sugar glider for AUS$450, both of which the journalist
purchased!
[38] Submission No. 332, p. 6.
[39] Evidence, p. RRA&T 690.
[40] Evidence, pp. RRA&T 691, 699.
[41] Submission No. 308, p. 2.
[42] Submission No. 332, pp. 11-12.
[43] Submission No. 332, p. 12.
[44] Submission No. 332, p. 9.
[45] Submission No. 332, p. 10.
[46] The NCCAW reports directly to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy on, inter alia,
wildlife as pets.
[47] Draft Minutes NCCAW19, 19 May 1997.
[48] Outback Pets, PO Box 150023 Austin Texas 78715-0023; www.flash.net/~pets/
[49] http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/regrove/
[50] http://www.fancypubs.com/critters/profiles/sugarglider/petshtm
[51] http://pw1.netcom.com/~dmcnamee/gin.html
[52] http://www.therossgroup.com/cms/sugar.htm