The trouble with these committees is that the only agendas that get pushed are the ones the committee members hold.When representing reptile societies the position of those members should be the ones being forwarded.
That's a very disingenuous view Mark, and not true at all in the case of the advisory group appointed by (then DECCW). Perhaps you are judging others by your own standards, since you hold very strong and probably unbendable views yourself. As a member of the advisory committee for the proposed NSW Reptile Keepers Code of Practice, along with Wokka, John Weigel, Dr Peter Harlow (from Taronga), John Cann, Dr Glenn Shea, Mike Duncan and a number of other very experienced reptile people (12 in all, and all appointed because of their professional experience or as REPRESENTATIVES OF NSW HERPETOLOGICAL SOCIETIES), I can say that NOT ONE of the individuals involved pushed any selfish motive or private agendas. A number of the individuals have very strong academic careers, and although they have collectively a deep interest in herpetology, they demonstrate around 400 years of collective experience. All of us gave up many hours of our time, both in discussion between ourselves, and with DECCW at Hurstville. In my case every meeting involved a 400km each-way trip to Sydney, and therefore involved considerable expense in time and money. And I haven't bred any reptiles for 4 years!
I suspect that they were, as I was, NOMINATED by members of their respective Herp Societies, to represent the interests of their group and NSW keepers in general. This is not the first time you've given these people a backhander, it's a cheap shot for you and it seems like you have a great big chip on your shoulder. I suggest that if you were a member of any Herp Society, you could have just as easily put yourself forward to be included in the group... perhaps you did but you weren't nominated?
Now, to explain a few facts about the discussions we had:
1. It became obvious from the start that DECCW was intent on mandating enclosure sizes (making them compulsory), and the unanimous view of the Advisory Group was that this was unsatisfactory, for many reasons.
2. We thought we had reached an agreement with DECCW that recommended enclosure sizes would be "guidelines," rather than bureaucratically imposed, enforceable in law standards, but individuals in DII (Dept of Industry and Investment) who have an idealogical investment in this process, insisted that they MUST be mandated. It was becoming more and more evident that this was the outcome the officers in DECCW wanted, regardless of sensible input from our vastly experienced group.
3. We were unable to get any further direct communication with DECCW, other than a meeting with the Dept head and the two DECCW officers, at which we were further stalled with promises of communication which did not eventuate.
4. Our group was even unable to get copies of the final proposed CoP from DECCW for us to examine, and had to resort to FOI to obtain a copy. We also sought information relevant to the CoP from DII, as we were aware that the process was at least being driven equally by that department. DECCW would not release an electronic copy to all members, I guess because they did not want it widely circulated as an easily transmitted PDF.
5. I can show you a long list of emails which were sent to various senior officeholders in DECCW, which either drew more stalling responses, or no response at all.
6. It is very clear that DECCW (now DEH) has done all it can to keep the less palatable aspects of the Code of Practice (and make no mistake, the enclosure size legislation will heavily impact private and commercial keepers, the Reptile Park, Zoos and anyone who keeps reptiles under intense management conditions, regardless of the health and wellbeing of the animals themselves).
7. It is obvious that the Code of Practice was to be slid into law at the same time as regulations proclaiming the sale of reptiles from commercial outlets in NSW, but both groups (ours and that representing commercial outlets) were kept totally separate by DECCW, in fact the existence of this parallel negotiation was never referred to al all. I guess the hope has been that the joy many keepers will experience by freeing up commercial sale legislation would be a sweetener for the sting in the tail of the Code of Practice. Hide the nasty behind a great fanfare of self-congratulatory hoo-haa...
The matter is still ongoing, as the issue of mandating enclosure sizes has not been resolved. The intention was to enact both pieces of legislation at the same time, for the reasons I have noted above, so until matters pertaining to the Code of Practice are sorted (which should be soon), it is unlikely that the commercial matter will be enacted independently.
A large number of people have given up significant amounts of their time in the interests of reptile keepers in NSW to try and resolve issues which should have been dealt with transparently by DECCW from the start - the Department has had the agenda all along, and it is typical of some sourpuss keepers who feel left out of the loop that they take cheap shots at those working on their behalf. It's one of the reasons why it is so difficult to keep everybody "in the loop" - there are so many wreckers within the hobby that anyone who tries to do the right thing will still be pulled down and dismembered by those who feel left out.
You can please some of the people some of the time...
Jamie