WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992, PROBLEMS IN PERMITTING, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 

2(HIS()CC 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-39 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales ()!lice, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-052041-X 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

JAMES V. HANSgN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN·, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, Califomia 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, Califomia 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California_ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL K!SH, Chief of Staff 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/ Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITI'EE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

WAYNE T. GILCREST, Maryland 

PETER G. TORKILDEN, Massachusetts 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

SAM FARR, California 

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director 

JOHN RAYFIELD, Professional Staff 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

(IIJ 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held September 28, 1995 ................. ........................................................ . Statement of Members: 

Ewing, Hon. Thomas W., a U.S. Representative from Illinois .................... .. Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans ........................... .. Studds, Hon. Gerry E., a U.S. Representative from Massachusetts ........... . Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska, and Chairman, 

Committee on Resources ................................ ............................................. . Statement of Witnesses: Beissinger, Steven R., Associate Professor of Ecology and Conservation 

~~;m·s~~~ie~~J~r J~~~i~o~~~: .. ~.~~~~~ -~~--~~~~~:?.'..~~-~-- ~~~~~ ~ Prepared statement ............................ ........ ............................................ .. . Bond, Frank, General Counsel, North American Falconers Association .... . Prepared statement .............................. ................. ............... ......... .... ....... . Su:eplemental testimony .................................................... ..... ........ ......... . Clubb, Susan L., DVM, Association of Avian Veterinarians ........................ . Prepared statement ...... ...................................................... ...................... . Curie, Frank, President, Zoological Birds Import (prepared statement) .... . Defenders of Wildlife (prepared statement) ................................................. .. Gable, Roddy, Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................. .... .. Herrighty, Larry, Supervising Wildlife Biologist, New Jersey Department 

of EnVIronmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife ......... . Prepared statement ..................................... ........ ............ ... ...................... . Jones, Marshall, Assistant Director for International Affairs, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service .......... ................................ ............. ...... .... .................... . Prepared statement ............... ................................................................... . Leape, James P., Senior Vice President, World Wildlife Fund .................... . Prepared statement .................... .......... .................................................... . Lieberman, Dr. Susan, Fish and Wildlife Service ................................ ....... .. 

Liii~~t~r~v?c~~~.crn~.r~-~~~ ~~ -~~-~ -~-~~-~~--~~~-~-~~~: .. ~.~~~ -~-~-~-~~~~ Prepared statement .................................................................. ........... ..... . Meyers, Marshall, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council ..................................................... ............ ... ...... . Prepared statement ......................................... .... ...... ... ..................... ....... . Muschinske, Martin (prepared statement) .................. ..................... ........... .. . Stiegler, Tom, Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................... . Telecky, Teresa M., Ph.D., Director, Wildlife Trade Program, The Hu- mane Society of the United States ........ ..................... ....... .. ....................... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material supplied: Ewing, Hon. Thomas W.: "Birdbrain Feds Turn Dream into Nightmare" ...................................... . "Gift May Prove Ticklish for First Lady" ............................... ................ . 

Fish J~:i ~ifdllf~s~~~~ed" ......... ................ ..... ............................................ . 

Dreamcatcher Investigation ...................................... .............................. . Processing Time for Permits .................................................................. .. Communications submitted: 

~li~~~·. ifif1a~t~d:;:: t;&;~~~~y·ai 'i99:(·t;;·M~ :· i?~g s~:;g~:;,: ·::::::: : Conservation, Scientific, Environmental and Animal Welfare Organizations: Letter of October 25, 1995, to Hon. James Saxton ......................... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

3 

1 

2 

1 

20 

77 

24 

104 

155 

28 

118 

138 

146 

6 

14 

50 

6 

40 

16 

55 

6 

30 

123 

26 

108 

153 

6 

18 

64 

38 

37 

39 

6 

10 

36 

35 

178 
IV 

Page 

Communications submitted-Continued 

Gallaway, Benny J. (Am. Fed. of Aviculture): Letter of October 26, 1995, to Hon. Jim Saxton ............................................................................. .. ..... ... 167 

Grandy, John W., James K. Wyerman, Allan Thornton, Christine Stevens 

(HSUS): Letter of October 27, 1995, to Congressman Jim Saxton ........... 171 

Hyde, Hon. Henry J.: Letter of September 27, 1995, to Hon. Jim Saxton .. 137 

Michels, Ann (EIA): Letter of October 27, 1995, to Hon. Jim Saxton ...... .... 176 

Munn, Charles A. (Wildlife Conservation Society): Letter of September 

26, 1995, to Representative Jim Saxton .......... ........ .......................... ...... .. . 163 

Wainright, Patricia, Ph.D.: Letter of October 26, 1995, to Congressman 

H. James Saxton with attachments ............................................................ 181 
WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISH- ERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

Mr. SAXTON. Good morning. Before we start, we are rather informal and I see that all you folks don't have seats. If you would like 

to come up and join us at this lower podium, that would be fine. 

It is better than standing up. 

Today's oversight hearing is on the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

of 1992. Lately the subcommittee has been receiving numerous letters from around the country regarding this law. While a fair number have reflected strong support for the Act as is, many more have 

written in opposition. I am hoping that this hearing today will clarify the Congressional intent of the Act and its implementation by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

My home state of New Jersey has a strong wild bird protection 

statute which will be discussed later today. It is my understanding 

that the Federal law is loosely modeled on the New Jersey law and 

laws of other states that have been put in place. 

I am concerned that the Clinton Administration did not ask for 

funding for the Wild Bird Conservation Act and look forward to discussing this with the Administration's witnesses. I remain supportive of the Act and hope that this lack of fiscal enthusiasm for the 

law on the Administration's part does not mean overall support is 

lacking. 

I now recognize the ranking member, who is not here. We will 

bypass the ranking member, and I ask unanimous consent that all 

subcommittee members be permitted to include their opening remarks in the record. Mr. Torkildsen was here, but he just left. 

[The statements follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A U .S . REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA, AND 

CHAIRMAN, COMMI'ITEE ON RESOURCES 

Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that the Subcommittee is today conducting this 

oversight hearing on the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) of 1992. 

(1) 
2 

While there are very few cockatoos, finches, or parakeets living in Alaska , this 

law has generated a tremendous amount of controversy. In fact, this Subcommittee 

has received hundreds of letters from Americans throughout this country who honestly believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is intent on reducing the num- ber of breeders, confiscating their pets, and making it virtually impossible to legally 

import a captive--bred exotic bird into the country. 

If that is the ease, then that is a wrong and misguided interpretation of the law 

which has as one of its goals the "sustainable utilization of exotic birds to create 

economic value in them and their habitat, which would contribute to their conservation and promote maintenance of biological diversity." 

I am also concerned that for the second consecutive year the Clinton Administration has failed to request any money for the Wild Bird Conservation Act. If this law 

is no longer required or is not priority, then it should be repealed. 

If this law is important, then the Clinton Administration has an obligation to stop 

stealing funds from other fish and wildlife programs, like our refuge system, and 

to pay the administrative and law enforcement costs of the WBCA. 

Finally, it is my hope that our distinguished witnesses will tell us whether they 

feel the Wild Bil'd Conservation Act has been effective, whether it has been properly 

administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and what changes, if any, are needed to P.L. 102-440. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERRY E. STUDDS, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

MAsSACHUSETTS 

Once upon a time, not so long ago, in lands far away, lots of bad people were taking lots and lots of young, exotic birds out of their tropical nests. The birds were 

stuffed inside empty tires, shipped through ports and over routes used by drug 

smugglers, then sold commercially for a premium in the United States. 

Needless to say, many of these birds did not live happily ever after-which is why 

the Congress attempted in 1992 to assess the biological impact of the enormous domestic demand for exotic birds. 

We learned that the United States is far and away the largest market for the pet 

trade and captive breeding, and that this demand was clearly jeopardizing the 

health of their native populations. 

We learned that an enormous number of birds-an estimated 100,000 a yearwere dying in transport. 

And we learned by heart the fairy tales about Fish and Wildlife personnel, storming late at night out of black helicopters, snatching bird-cages out of the homes of 

devoted and terrified cockatoo owners. 

The moral is not that the 1992 statute passed unanimously in both the House and 

Senate, and was signed into law by President Bush. Or even that, as we sought quiet consensus three years ago, the 1992 bill was 

supported by some of the same groups which today call for its repeal. 

It doesn't even matter that many people have a hard time taking the problems 

of finches and lovebirds seriously. 

The point is the law has worked. Bird smuggling and laundering-operations run 

in many cases by the same people who smuggle illegal drugs, and with the same 

motives-have been severely undermined. Weakening this statute now would mean buckling to the pressures of misinfomtation, and would risk doing unnecessary harm to entire species. 

As we will hear this morning, we may need to address some inequities in the statute. However, while I realize the environmental record of this Congress has not 

stressed subtlety and nuance, I would respectfully suggest that it may be possible 

to shoot at this target with something smaller than an elephant gun. 

Mr. SAXTON. Our first witness is the gentleman from Illinois, 

Tom Ewing. We are going to hear Mr. Ewing and then perhaps we 

will have a question or two for him, and then we will go on to the 

next panel. Tom, thank you for being with us this morning. You 

are recognized for your contribution. 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS W. EWING, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS 

Mr. EWING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate 

the opportunity to speak here today on this controversial issue. 

While I am not here to specifically discuss the Wild Bird Protection 

Act, I am going to discuss the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's enforcement of bird protection laws in general. 

I would like to take this opportunity to recount a series of events 

that have taken place over the last year in my district. In May of 

1994 the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, gave the commencement address at the University of Illinois at Champaign, which is also in 

my district. A woman who was active in arts and crafts at the time 

in nearby Monticello, Illinois, named Peg Bargon was asked by a 

local Democratic party official if she would make a dream catcher 

for the First Lady. 

For those of you who are unfamiliar with a dream catcher, they 

consist of a hoop with beads hanging from the bottom and feathers 

surrounding the hoop. According to Native American lore, the hoop 

was supposed to catch bad dreams and funnel good dreams toward 

the sleeper's head through the bead!'l. These items can be found in 

virtually any craft store in the country. 

Peg Bargon was thrilled with the opportunity to represent Monticello and all of Central Illinois in preparing a gift for the First 

Lady. The gift was presented to Mrs. Clinton. Mrs. Clinton then 

sent Peg Bargon a letter thanking her and explaining what a great 

addition the dream catcher made in the White House and that she 

was equally proud that it represented Native American culture. 

This story was picked up by one of the local newspapers in my 

district and accompanied by a photo of Mrs. Clinton being presented the gift. One of the agents in the Springfield, Illinois, office 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noticed the picture and specifically took note of the feathers adorning the dream catcher. An 

elaborate sting operation was set up with an agent posing as someone interested in buying a dream catcher. 

Also, Mrs. Bargon sells dream catchers in a local arts and crafts 

store run by two sisters. These women were also targeted in the 

sting operation. Finally the agent moved in and came to Peg 

Bargon's door armed with a search warrant and searched her 

home. They also showed up at the craft store, locked the doors and 

forced the employees to sit there while they were searching the entire store, a sem·ch that lasted several hours. 

These women were arrested and charged with violating various 

bird protection laws. They were not out killing birds for their feathers. To the contrary, she would find various feathers while walking 

through the woods by her house. They offered a plea bargain. In 

the exchange for a guilty plea, prosecutors would recommend the 

most lenient penalty allowed under law" Peg Bargon pleaded guilty 

and is awaiting sentencing. She faces up to six months home confinement and up to $20,000 in fines as a result of this plea. No 

charges have been made against the two store owners. 

This issue has set the Fish and Wildlife Service in Central Illinois back fifty years. Every newspaper in my district came out 

against the agency. Every piece of mail : have received on this 

issue has been in support of Peg Bargon. At a time when there is 
4 

unprecedented scrutiny of law enforcement, it is exactly this type 

of operation that feeds the discontent of the American people. To 

get an idea of how ridiculous this situation got, the agent with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service was quoted in the press as saying that 

technically the First Lady was in violation of the same laws that 

these ladies were. 

We need a little common sense to be injected into both the statutes and the enforcement of such statutes. Now I don't think that 

Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for this event. My complaint 

is not about bird protection laws, but the overzealousness of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement. Nobody here wants to see 

birds hunted down for their feathers or otherwise endangered for 

any commercial reason, but to treat a bird feather like heroin or 

enriched uranium is preposterous. If you stop and pick up a blue 

jay feather, and I have in my own yard, that is laying in the yard 

or along the street, you are guilty of a felony because of the strict 

liability of the law. The fact that the Fish and Wildlife agent locked these women inside their store while they were conducting the search is unconscionable. These women would be like your mother, your sister, certainly not criminals. The other day at a local picnic a 90-year-old 

lady said to me almost in tears that she had picked up a bird feather and how frightened she was that she might be arrested. 

Monticello, Illinois is a small town that is as typical of midAmerica, law-abiding America as any place in the world, and to 

have this kind of sting operation in that community is just unbelievable. People in small towns like Monticello respect the law and 

in return they expect to have respect. We need a more common 

sense approach, because it is the poachers that are the most significant threat that we should be concentrating on stopping, not 

the activities of law-abiding citizens. Now a simple warning from 

the agency, I am sure, would have stopped any illegal action in this 

community. 

I would suggest that we focus on changing the strict liability 

statute for simple possession and leave it in place for those people 

who are target-who are poaching. This is a more responsible and 

reasonable approach to this problem. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to come here 

and to share this story. It is more than just a story of people in 

my district. Peg Bargon pled guilty because this was destroying her 

life, her marriage, her family and she had to get out of a bad situation. She couldn't fight it any longer. We shouldn't treat our people 

like that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The attachments to the statement of Hon. Thomas Ewing may 

be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. I would just say, Mr. Ewing, that members of this 

subcommittee, as well as the full committee, who are responsible 

for monitoring, and from time to time reauthorizing, laws that have 

to do with saving endangered species or other types of laws which 

are so important to the environmental quality of our country and 

our world hear stories like this from time to time and it always 

makes our job that much more difficult. We have some new folks 

on this panel, particularly on the full committee, who have heard 

stories like this that have been carried out by environmental agen-
5 

cies of one kind or another or the Division of Fish and Wildlife, and 

it really makes our job very difficult because then we have to justify the intent of the law in the face of overreaching on the part 

of agencies. 

And this example is probably the most fallacious example, that 

I have ever heard, of overreaching. And I wish that environmental 

protection agencies and the Division of Fish and Wildlife and other 

state, Federal and local agencies would put themselves in a position of being more responsible all the time, because when something like this happens it just makes it extremely difficult for all 

of us who want to do a responsible job. 

From your point of view, how do you think this situation should 

have been handled? 

Mr. EWING. Well, I think the agency should use a lot of common 

sense in applying the law. I would have either given a verbal notice 

or a written notice to the people involved that they were in violation of the law, that they could be prosecuted for their activities, 

and then I would have watched very closely to see what happened. 

If they didn't cease the activity immediately, then they should be 

prosecuted. I took a few surveys in groups, and I asked how many 

people knew there was even such a law on the books, and no on~ 

almost no one-would raise their hand. Now that isn't a defense not to know the law, but it is in fact 

a condition that I think responsible law enforcement would take 

into consideration. So I think a simple notice given, at least on the 

first violation for somebody in just possession, and then notify 

them of the law would be the best way to handle it. 

Mr. SAXTON. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony and 

for bringing this situation to our attention. The ranking member 

has arrived, and I suspect that perhaps he doesn't have any questions at this time, but welcome aboard. Appreciate you being here. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Ewing, for your testimony, unless 

you have something further to add. 

Mr. EWING. If I can be of any further service or make any more 

input on this, I would be very happy to do so. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Now let me introduce our 

second panel also comprised of one person, Mr. Marshall Jones, who is the Assistant Director of International Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Jones, we are anxious to hear your 

testimony, and so you may begin whenever you are ready. Mr. JoNEs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Jones, I understand there is a Sue Lieberman 

with you. If she would like to join you at the table, that is up to 

you. 

Mr. JONES. All right, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to ask Dr. 

Lieberman. And I also have Mr. Tom Striegler with me and I have 

Mr. Roddy Gable from our scientific authority. Mr. Chairman, before I start my statement on the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act, I wanted to take note of the testimony which 

was given by the previous panelist. I was not asked to prepare testimony on the dream catcher issue and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, and so I am not prepared to address those issues today. However, Mr. Chairman, if this committee has any questions about the 
6 

situation, we would be more than pleased to provide you with a 

written summary of Fish and Wildlife Service's actions which took 

place and answer any questions which you or Mr. Ewing or any 

other member of this committee or the Congress as a whole may 

have on that. We would be happy to do that if that would help facilitate your understanding of what happened and why. 

[The following was submitted:] 

DREAMCATCHER INVESTIGATION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for enforcing the provisions of 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Under the MBTA, it is unlawful for 

anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, trade, sell, ship, import, or export any 

migratory bird, includin~ feathers, parts, nests, or eggs. 

The U.S. Fish and W1ldlife Serv1ce does not actively investigate mere possession cases. We focus our investigative efforts on commercial trade. The Service's investigation into the illegal commercialization of migratory birds feathers by Ms. Peg 

Bargon was an investigation into the commercial (for profit) sale of migr&tory bird 

feathers. Evidence showed that Ms. Bargon was actively collecting and encoura~ng 

others to collect migratory bird feathers to be used in simulated Native Amencan 

handicrafts and offered for sale. 

In May 1994, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her official capacity as First 

Lady, received a "Dreamcatcher" during an appearance at the University of Illinois. 

The dreamcatcher was made by Peg Bargon and it contained feathers from pro- tected migratory birds including bald eagle, barred owl, goshawk, and snowy owl. 

As soon as Mrs. Clinton learned that the dreamcatcher contained feathers from protected species, she immediately turned it over to officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

As the popularity of American Indian artifacts has increased, a lucrative market 

has developed for migratory bird and eagle feathers to decorate many Indian curios 

and art objects. Enforcement officers have no way of determining whether feathers 

used in art work are found on the ground in one's own backyard, or if they came from a bird that was killed illegally. The prohibitions under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act are therefore intended to eliminate any commercial market for the birds 

themselves as well as their feathers and parts. Also, Mrs. Bargon has no affiliation 

with any Native American tribe and would not qualify for possession of feathers on this basis. 

Statements recorded by Special Agents during the investigation documented that 

Bargon, Norma Allen and Beverly Fogel, owners of the Sisters Etc. Crafters Mall 

where the dreamcatchers were publicly displayed and sold, knew and discussed the 

fact that possession and sale of migratory bird parts and feathers was illegal. In 

addition, Allen and Fogel admitted to Special Agents that they had been warned 

that the sale and possession of migratory bird parts and feathers was illegal. They 

further stated that they discussed this conversation with Bargon. They still decided 

to continue to commercially deal in the dreamcatchers. 

Brad Purcell, who stored migratory bird parts at his residence for Bargon, stated 

to Special Agents that his attorney had advised him that the possession and sale 

of parts and feathers of migratory birds was illegal. Purcell stated that he discussed 

this information with Bargon and they still continued with the illegal commer- cialization of migratory bird feathers. 

During the investigation, Bargon stated to Special Agents that she not only collected the feathers and whole carcasses of protected migratory birds herself but she 

encouraged hunters, trappers and others to collect and provide her with such bird 

parts. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. SUSAN LIEBERMAN, TOM 

STIEGLER, AND RODDY GABLE 

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate this opportunity to be 

here today to discuss the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's implementation of the Wild Bird Conservation Act. For reasons which I 

will describe, we believe that the reauthorization of this act without amendments is vitally important to the continued survival of 
7 

some of the world's most beautiful and important wild birds. In 

order to explain why the Wild Bird Act is so important, I would 

like to take a moment to describe the situation prior to the approval of this law by Congress and its enactment by President 

Bush in 1992. 

Before then, the United States was the world's largest consumer 

of wild exotic birds, importing somewhere between five and eight 

hundred thousand birds per year in the 1980's. Unfortunately, the 

majority of these birds were taken in the wild in unsustainable 

harvest programs, having a seriously detrimental effect on the species. In addition, for every bird imported experts estimated that up 

to five more died in capture, holding and transport in their native 

countries. And of the birds which finally did make it to the United 

States, Department of Agriculture statistics show that from 1985 

to 1990 over 330,000 birds were dead on arrival in their crates or 

died during the required 30-day quarantine period. 

There is an international treaty, CITES, the Convention on 

International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 

Flora, which is designed to prevent unsustainable trade and mortality in transport. But, at that time, CITES was not enough since 

many of the nations involved in the wild bird trade lacked the ability or the incentive to collect the required information and institute 

the controls that would be necessary to ensure that the trade was 

not harmful to wild populations. That was the situation prior to 

1992, and the United States was powerless to stop it until the Wild 

Bird Conservation Act was enacted as a way to halt U.S. involvement in this unsustainable trade. 

Before I describe how the Wild Bird Conservation Act has done 

this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to describe some of the things 

that the Wild Bird Conservation Act does not do. The Wild Bird 

Conservation Act completely exempts all birds native to the United 

States, like cardinals and bald eagles, from any of its provisions. 

It also exempts ten families of birds, including game birds like 

ducks, geese and turkeys as well as ostriches and others. It has no 

effect at all on the commerce within any state or the commerce between states, nor does it have any effect on the breeding of birds 

within the United States. The Wild Bird Act has focused on one 

simple thing, regulating the imports of wild birds into the United 

States to make sure that they originate from sustainably established programs and do not suffer harm in transport. 

The Wild Bird Act accomplished this through a phase-in period, 

and after one year a complete prohibition on imports of any bird 

listed under CITES unless these birds met criteria for sustainable 

origin. There are four ways in which the Wild Bird Act does this, 

and I would like to describe very briefly each of those ways and 

what we have done to date to implement that provision. 

The first step was to establish a permit process, since the law 

provides that birds can come in with prior issuance of permits for 

four purposes-personal pets, zoological display, scientific research, 

and cooperative breeding programs. Since we finalized our regulations for permits in 1993, we have issued over 550 permits, 90 percent of them for personal pets. And we are now able to process permit applications for these personal pets in less than two weeks. We 

have also issued permits to 14 zoological institutions to import 
8 

specimens for breeding and public display, and nine cooperative 

breeding programs have been approved with oversight from organizations ranging from the Peregrine Fund to the American Federation of Aviculture. We encourage other breeding programs to apply 

for permits and we are working to make the application process as 

user-friendly and efficient as we can. 

The second step was to establish an approved list of captive-bred 

species which could be imported without need for permits. We have 

now adopted a list which includes 45 species and three color forms. 

It is significant that the final list we adopted in 1994 contained a 

number of additions of parrots and finches which were species recommended to us during the public comment period. 

The third step in implementation was to allow for imports of 

birds taken in the wild in foreign countries. The law provides for 

this provided those countries have a sustainable management program. We have published proposed regulations to implement this 

provision. We received over 1500 comments. We have completed 

the analysis of those comments and we expect to have final regulations adopted by the end of this year. 

The fourth step was to implement the provisions of the law that 

provide for approval of captive breeding facilities in foreign countries. We also have published a proposed rule. We have received 

over 4000 comments. 

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SAXTON. I suspect that you have a couple more minutes. 

Why don't you just go ahead and proceed in spite of the fact that 

five minutes has expired. 

Mr. JONES. All right, I appreciate this, Mr. Chairman. I will try 

to be brief. We have received over 4000 comments. We have completed the review of those comments and we have now done our 

first draft, and we expect to be able to adopt final regulations for 

those foreign captive breeding facilities early next year. 

We recognize that many people wish that we had adopted our 

regulations sooner. No one wishes that more than we do. However, 

Mr. Chairman, this was a new and unprecedented law, and as I 

mentioned, we received many thousands of comments. And the one 

thing we did not want to do was make a rush to judgment. Wereceived comments that have caused us to look again at everything 

we have done. We will seriously consider those comments, and that 

is what has taken time. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the law asked us to review the possibilities for implementation of some kind of voluntary marking or labeling program and to consider whether we needed to do regulations. 

We have consulted with a number of aviculturists and organizations, many of whom are represented here, and we held a public 

meeting on this subject in April of this year. We have now concluded that there is no need at the present time and we see no 

need in the foreseeable future to impose any labeling program on 

any breeder or business, and we have no intention of pursuing this 

matter further. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife Service strongly 

supports the reauthorization of the Wild Bird Conservation Act. 

The United States has shown world leadership in the conservation 
9 

of exotic birds and reauthorization will confirm our commitment to 

continue this leadership. We look forward to working with this 

committee on the reauthorization process. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement which I would ask 

your permission to enter into the record. It also includes a number 

of attachments which describe in more detail our program. And I 

would also be happy to answer any questions which you may have. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Your written statement certainly will be 

included in the record without objection. 

[Statement of Marshall Jones may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. SAXTON. I suspect that your characterization of the Act as 

user-friendly may be subject to some questions by some panelists 

who will follow you. Let us suppose that they have already told us 

some stories about how difficult it is to deal with the Act. Would 

you expound on your contention that this program as it exists currently is user-friendly? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, my intent there was to say that that 

is our goal. 

Mr. SAXTON. I am sorry. OK. 

Mr. JONES. I won't say thatMr. SAXTON. That you obviously have not quite reached. Mr. JONES. If you set a high enough goal, it may be something 

that you never reach. I have administered various kinds of permits 

programs for a number of years and I found that one thing is true, 

you always have to keep reinventing your process. It is never perfect when you are dealing with the public. There are several things 

about the Wild Bird Conservation Act, though, that I think that 

have lent themselves to misunderstandings. The law is new and it 

is unprecedented, and I think there were widespread fears that the 

law would have a greater impact on people's individual activities 

than the law actually provided for. I also think when we propose 

rules we try to propose something which reflects our best thoughts 

about how law should be implemented. In the case of some of our 

proposals, we received a lot of comments that have told us that 

there may be improvements that we can make. We are taking 

those comments very seriously and we are working to come up with 

a process that will be as user-friendly as we can make it today. And we will keep constantly striving to improve that for the future. 

Mr. SAXTON. How long does it take generally today to work 

through the process from the time someone applies for a permit to 

the time that they receive one? 

Mr. JONES. For personal pets, which are the kind of permits that 

have the most immediate impact on someone, we are able to do 

those now in less than two weeks. Our general goal for permits of 

all kinds is 60 to 90 days. We have been able to meet that target 

in some cases and not in others. For example, for the permits for 

cooperative breeding programs, we endeavor to contact the bird authorities and the CITES management authorities in countries of origin. International communications take time, and so we have 

found we are not always able to meet our deadline of 60 to 90 days. 

I do not have an exact average processing time, Mr. Chairman, but 

we could certainly supply that to you for the record. But we are 

working constantly to shorten those times with our goal to have it 

the minimum possible in order to--
10 

[The following was submitted:] 

PROCESSING TIME FOR PERMITS 

Three months is the average processing time for permits under the Wild Bird 

Concervation Act, excluding permits for pet birds which take less time, as stated 

above. 

Mr. SAXTON. Are regulations currently in place for the importation of captively bred species? 

Mr. JONES. There are regulations in place which allow the import 

of 45 species without need for permits that are on an approved list. 

Those are species which meet a criterion in the law that there be 

no wild-caught members of that species in trade, so there is no possibility of any harm. The regulations for import from individual 

captive breeding facilities in other countries have been proposed. 

Those are the regulations that we have the 4000 comments. We 

have completed the analysis of those comments. We expect to have 

final regulations in place early next year. 

Mr. SAXTON. I understand that this process on this set of regulations that you speak of has been ongoing for three years, is that 

correct? 

Mr. JONES. The law took effect three years ago and we phased 

our implementation of the law, recognizing that there were many 

different parts. The law itself also had a phased period, because 

during the first year imports were allowed under a quota system. 

After that first year, automatic prohibitions took effect. And so we 

have published, Mr. Chairman, regulations first and foremost~ur 

first priority was the permits process so that people had a way to 

get permits. The second priority was establishing the lists of species that don't need any permits at all, and we have adopted the 

regulations that establish the list of 45 captive-bred species. We 

have two more pieces to that that need to be finalized on the captive breeding facilities to which you just referred, as well as the 

management programs in other countries. And those are the ones 

that we expect to have finalized at the end of this year for the foreign breeding programs and early next year for the captive breeding facilities. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me turn to a slightly different subject, and then 

we will ask Mr. Studds if he has any questions. I understand that 

the Administration has never requested funding for the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act. I assume that is true, therefore the question is 

how in the world are you funded? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure of the source of your 

information, but in fiscal year 1994 the Administration did request 

funding to implement the Wild Bird Act. We requested that in two 

ways. We requested $500,000 for permits programs, but we also requested additional funding. A total of SOO,OOC additional dollars 

were requested also to implement general permits programs in fiscal year 1994. And there was an additional request of $500,000 for 

law enforcement for wild birds and related activities. We received 

an appropriation, but we did not receive the entire amount which 

we requested, which included funding for a variety of our permits 

programs. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we have some funding for the Wild Bird Act, 

but we do not have all of the funding which was requested in fiscal 
11 

year 1994. In fiscal 1995, the next year, we requested again some 

increases for our permits programs in general. We did not get all 

of what we requested. In fiscal 1996 we requested a small increase, 

$100,000 I believe it was, for our permits programs. We did notreceive that increase. So, Mr. Chairman, we have some funding for 

wild birds, but we have not received overall for the permits program as much as we had requested. 

Mr. SAXTON. I just want to make sure that we are not confused 

on this. I have a memo here from Dr. Lieberman which indicates 

clearly that the request for '95 was zero and that the request for 

'96 was zero. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, that was the request that was specifically identified under Wild Bird Act. We requested funds in fiscal 

year 1994 under the Wild Bird Act, but we also requested funds 

for our general permits program, because it is a little hard to separate. Some aspects of our permits processing are generic, whether 

it is Wild Bird Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Act 

or other laws that we administer. So Dr. Lieberman's information 

that you have there is certainly correct in terms of what we requested specifically under this law, but it does not cover general increases that we requested for permit activities in those fiscal years 

that included a wide variety of laws. 

Mr. SAXTON. You are taking funds from another general source, 

is that what you are saying? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. We have a general appropriation. This year 

it is-the line item is International Affairs in the Fish and Wildlife 

Service budget, and in our budget request to Congress we very specifically describe all the different activities which are funded out of 

that, and the Wild Bird Act is mentioned there, but it is one of several laws which we administer. Mr. SAXTON. Do you think-are you adequately funded? I think 

that is the bottom line here. Can you do your job with the funding 

that you are able to find from other sources? Do you need more 

staff? Would you be able to meet your deadlines and your objectives 

more adequately if you were properly funded? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I guess there is-somewhere there is 

a law that-a rule that bureaucrats are sort of trained in one way 

to say there is never enough funding. In this case, Mr. Chairman, 

I would say that we believe we have enough resources to administ er the law. We did make requests for increases that would have 

helped us administer the law better that -we did not get. In this 

time of fiscal constraints, we e.l.l recognize that we have to tl"'J to 

work as efficiently as we can, and so we are prepared to administer 

the law to the very best of our ability and, we think, to administer 

the law fairly with the resources that we have now. 

Mr. SAXTON. I am not-Mr. Studd::; was the chairman and did a 

lot of work on this, and I will turn to him, but we authorized up 

to $5 million a year, I believe, because we were-we assumed that 

there would be tasks to be performed that would require some significant amount of money. And you are performing these tasks. I 

guess on the one hand we should congratulate you, but on the 

other hand if the small amount of money is prohibiting or making 

it too difficult or making it burdensome on the users that we are 

here to regulate, then that could certainly cause us some concern. 
12 

That is the end of my questioning. Mr. Studds, why don't you 

proceed. 

Mr. STUDDS .. It is your problem now, Mr. Chairman. Good luck. 

I think it is very wise of you not to request any funding, otherwise you might be abolished. My counsel to you would be to keep 

your head down. If attacked, claim you don't exist. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid it is--

Mr. STUDDS. Try to ride it out. 

Mr. JONES. Congressman, I am afraid it is too late. 

Mr. STUDDS. Don't be ashamed of highfalutin goals. I mean, consider what these folks say they are going to do, pretty awesome. 

I remember when we worked on this law three years ago. Much 

of the opposition was based, I think, more on fear of the unknown 

than perhaps anything else. That is understandable, an industry 

that has never been regulated faces the prospect for the first time 

of regulation of some kind. Based on the concerns we have heard 

leading up to this hearing, it sounds to me like we may have that 

same problem again. And I am sort of trying to sort out fiction from 

fact. Can you tell us how many permits have actually been denied? 

How many birds have actually been confiscated and how many foreign governments have in fact complained about the crackdown on 

trade in birds? 

Mr. JONES. Congressman, if I could take your questions in reverse order. I know of no foreign governments which have expressed any complaints to us about the implementation of the Wild 

Bird Act. We have had some direct dealings with foreign governments, and my colleague Dr. Lieberman has just returned, for example, from meetings in Central America where she worked extensively with colleagues from Latin American countries, Argentina 

and others, about how they could improve their management of 

wild birds and how they could hope to qualify under the law once 

our regulations are final. 

In terms of the number of confiscations, Congressman, with your 

permission I would like to turn to my colleague, Mr. Tom Striegler 

from our division of law enforcement and ask him if he could address that question. 

Mr. STRIEGLER. Mr. Chairman, our computer indicates that we 

have seized a little over 2600 birds since the implementation of the 

Act. Now I am not-I don't have the disposition of all those birds, 

so I don't know that all of them have actually been forfeited to the 

government, but those are the number of seizures indicated by our 

central computer. 

Mr. JONES .. i\nd finally, Congressman, you asked about the number of permits which we have denied, and let me ask Dr. 

Lieberman if she has the information. 

Dr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, thank you. We have denied two permits for 

scientific research, two for zoological breeding and display and we 

have denied two applications for cooperative breeding programs out 

of a total of 12 applications. 

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you. You made some reference, Mr. Jones, to 

the fact that there have been suggestions that we eliminate from 

regulation captive-bred critters. I know-I recall that one of our 

concerns in 1992 was so-called bird laundering, that is not putting 

them in the washing machine, but we were worried about illegally 
13 

caught wild birds being sold as captive bred. Have you had any 

cases that relate to the problem? 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Congressman, we have had some very substantial cases that relate to that problem. One recent operation, Operation Renegade, involved an international smuggling ring engaged 

in all kinds of activities designed to get fraudulent papers, and 

bring birds into the United States under false circumstances. Now 

that case was not brought under the Wild Bird Conservation Act, 

because the case was initiated before the law was passed, but it 

does emphasize that there are those who would seek to make a 

profit off the illegal acquisition, the unsustainable taking of birds 

from the wild, bringing them into commerce and selling them into 

the United States. It is not surprising since the value of some of 

the birds that were involved in this operation, cockatoos from Australia which were removed from nests and smuggled into the United States and then masqueraded as captive-bred birds, many of 

those birds were worth many thousand dollars in the retail trade. 

And so, Mr. Congressman, there is this very small minority of 

those who will seek to ignore the law and by fraudulent means 

bring birds in. That does not mean, Mr. Congressman, that we believe that the vast majority of those who are affected by the law 

are anything except law-abiding citizens who will seek in every 

way they can to comply with the law, but it does emphasize, Mr. 

Chairman, that there is always the possibility of illegal activities, 

and we strive to take the appropriate action to minimize those, to 

find the people who are doing that and to prosecute them. 

Mr. STUDDS. So your position generally is that the law as it 

stands is fine, although it could always use improvement in administration, and that is your goal? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STUDDS. Are you quite sure you want this Congress doing 

anything at all with your statute? 

Mr. JONES. Congressman--

Mr. STUDDS. Do you want a reauthorization or would you like us 

to pretend momentarily that you don't exist? 

Mr. JONES. I will have to repeat, I think it is too late for us to 

become a stealth program. 

Mr. STUDDS. You are not expensive enough. 

Mr. JONES. And we do-we seek to have the Act reauthorized 

and we hope that it can be reauthorized exactly the way it is written right now. 

Mr. STUDDS. Let us pray. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SAXTON. I see that the new Congress has at least one member's attention. Mr. Jones, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I have no further questions and will excuse you at this point. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. JONES. All right, thank you, sir. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me introduce the third panel made up of Mr. 

Larry Herrighty, who is the Supervising Wildlife Biologist from the 

Department of Fish and Game from my home state, New Jersey, 

member of the Department of Environmental Protection; also Mr. James P. Leape, Senior Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund; 

and Dr. Teresa M. Telecky, the Director of the Wildlife Trade Program for the Humane Society of the U.S.; and Dr. Steve Beissinger 
14 

of the Ornithological Society of North America. Welcome and, Larry 

Herrighty, you may begin. 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have already been introduced, so I will not 

do that again. 

Mr. SAXTON. You might like to, if you don't mind, pull that 

microphone a little closer. 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. OK. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY HERRIGHTY, SUPERVISING WILDLIFE 

BIOLOGIST, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF El'oi'VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DIVISION OF FISH, GAME AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. I am here to support the reauthorization of the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act because I believe the Act is necessary 

to conserve wild bird populations that are in jeopardy because of 

commercial trade. The people of New Jersey feel likewise. In 1991 

the New Jersey legislature overwhelmingly passed a wild bird act 

which prohibited the possession of wild-caught birds not already in 

possession. The exemptions are very similar to the Federal act. I 

have had the opportunity to read the public comment in the register as well as some newsletters put out by some organizations, 

and what I find is there is no objection to the primary intent of the 

Act, which is to preserve wild populations of birds, however there 

seems to be some concerns regarding the regulations and some misinformation out there. I would like to address those issues because 

we have heard them all in New Jersey and have been able to deal 

with them successfully. The first issue is the need to scrutinize documentation in order 

to separate out illegal and legally-possessed birds as well as to 

qualify overseas breeding facilities. Some testimony heard today 

may indicate that certifying or dealing in scrutinizing captive birds 

is out of place, however I would submit that it is a necessary management tool without which the intent of the Act cannot be accomplished. Proper documentation of legal birds always helps the legal 

citizen and makes it easier for the purveyor in illegal wildlife to be 

detected. Requiring documentation and tagging has been a widelypracticed and :long-used tool in the history of wildlife management 

in North America. For example, hunters are reCJ;uired to tag game 

animals, commercial fisherman are now requirea to log their landings. 1-\nd whenever any of this Viildlife is processed through the 

system, receipts or documents ar a always required to be with those 

parts in order to document that they were originaily obtained le- gally. In New Jersey, the Wild Bird Act requires that purchasers of exotic birds produce a receipt or document which states that the animal is domestically bred. In 1995 we processed approximately 4000 

permits for the hobby category for wild birds, and we only have ten 

applicants today that are outstanding as far as citizens not being 

able to produce the documentation that we require by law. We are 

fortunate in that we also control the permits for the breeders and 

the dealers, and so if there is any question we can scrutinize their 

receipts and their sources of origin and we can rely on the fish and 
15 

wildlife agencies in other states if we have any questions. However, 

we do have a problem in that wild birds or birds from other sources 

that have passed through several hands may be coming into New 

Jersey without our ability to scrutinize them effectively. We also 

have a problem in attempting to control the Wild Bird Act, wild 

bird trade on a state level in that our citizens frequently go to 

other states, purchase birds during their vacations and are not 

being provided the required documentation that we ask of them 

when they come back into New Jersey and attempt to register their 

birds. My point here is that trying to do this on a state level is not 

the most effective way to do it and it creates some inconveniences 

for our citizens. 

I believe that it is going to be a lot more difficult to require proper documentation from foreign sources, but I believe it is a necessary function of the Wild Bird Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has indicated that apparently they are not going to require 

banding of domestic birds, and I believe they may or may not require banding on wild source birds, however-and I agree that just 

relying on banding alone is not effective in attempting to distinguish between a wild-caught and a captive-bred bird since a young 

hatchling taken out of a tree in some foreign country can easily 

have a closed band slipped over its leg. I will point out, however, 

that in New Jersey we do require leg bands for any bird that is 

now bred in captivity and any bird that is a pre-act bird or comes 

from another state. If it changes hands or is sold, we require that 

it has a butt-end band put on it. And the way we look at that is 

that we can then identify an individual bird and trace it back to 

its documentation. We have had many misconceptions and we get 

lots of phone calls in New Jersey relative to our documentation requirements. Once explained, the majority of people can easily meet 

our criteria. And in all those conversations that I have had, and 

they reach into the hundreds in the last couple years, no one has 

expressed dissatisfaction with our reason for requiring such documentation. Like the Federal act, we have an exemption for people to import 

wild birds if they need to breed birds for conservation issues when 

they wish to increase the genetic diversity of the breeding stock. 

We have had one applicant in the last year since our regulations 

went into effect. My staff tells me it was the best application they 

have ever seen and we did grant that permit to import a wild bird 

for conservation breeding purposes. The third concern that I hear is that implementation of the Act 

and its subsequent regulations will curtail the captive breeding of 

birds in the United States. In New Jersey we found that not to be 

the case. It makes sense that when you take away the source of 

cheaper wild birds it makes it easier for domestic breeders to make 

a living. Our consumers are educated. They understand the conservation issues involved in the Wild Bird Act and they understand 

the animal welfare issues. They have expressed to me that the last 

thing they want to do is buy a wild bird and become part of the 

trade. The fact that we have reduced competition from wild sources 

has caused our captive breeders in New Jersey to flourish. In 1991 

we had approximately ten bird breeders that had applied for commercial permits. This year we have approximately 50 people that 
16 

have received permits to breed birds on a commercial level. I would 

point out that we have a lot of hobbyists that do that as well, but 

there seems to be a increased effort since the market is there now. So I would argue that we haven't hurt the captive breeder. We 

have helped them out. In conclusion, I would like to say that New Jersey believes that 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act is on target and that the regulations are fair and seem to meet the objectives. We believe that control of export and import of wildlife is best left at the Federal level. 

We have had a longstanding and good relationship with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and we hope that with the full implementation of the Act and the regulations that we can go back and look 

at our regulations and bring them into line so that the consumer 

will have a standard regulatory framework in which to conduct 

business or their hobby. Thank you very much. 

[Statement of Lawrence Herrighty may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Leape. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. LEAPE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

WORLD WILDLIFE FUND 

Mr. LEAPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim Leape, Senior 

Vice President and head of the conservation programs for World 

Wildlife Fund. In the late '70's and early '80's, many of us became 

concerned that the pet trade in wild birds was devastating wild 

populations around the world, especially in the tropics. The existing mechanisms of international law, in particular the Convention 

on International Trade in Endangered Species, known as CITES, 

provided some protection for birds, but not enough. Those protections are too easily eluded by fraudulent permits or defeated simply 

by the lack of capacity in exporting countries to assess and manage 

their own wild populations. It is for that reason that in 1988 WWF convened the Cooperative 

Working Group on Bird Trade to try and come up with better protections for wild populations. That group brought together most of 

the organizations that are represented here today. In fact, Dr. 

Telecky and I, and Gary Lilienthal, Marshall Meyers and Susan 

Clubb on the next panel, all spent many hours in windowless 

rooms trying to hash out the issues that are reflected in this bill 

and in today's hearing. And I think those discussions can at least 

fairly be said to have laid the groundwork for this Act. 

I think we can all agree that the Wild Bird Conservation Act has 

had an immediate and dramatic impact on the bird trade and a 

positive impact on wild populations. The data show that legal imports of birds into the U.S. have fallen from nearly half a million 

three years ago to only about 100,000 last year. And so already I 

think we can say the Act has been a success. Fish and Wildlife 

Service has moved promptly to implement some provisions of the 

Act, most importantly, allowing the import of species that are widely bred in captivity and not traded from wild populations, a list of 

45 species that are therefore allowed for import, and also exemptions for imports for zoos, research and cooperative breeding programs and birds that are already personal pets. 
17 

Our principal concern is that the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

been slow to issue regulations on two other important provisions of 

the Act, and those are the provisions that would allow imports of 

birds from foreign captive breeding facilities and that would allow 

imports of birds sustainably harvested from the wild. The details 

of those two issues are best sorted out by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service as the agency expert in these issues and charged with sorting them out, but let me just highlight our basic concerns. 

Principally we are concerned because both of these provisions are 

important to the conservation of birds in the wild. Allowing the import of birds from legitimate captive breeding operations overseas 

helps to reduce market pressures on wild populations. In short, by 

helping to meet the demand for pet birds, imports from captive 

breeding facilities help reduce the demand for smuggled birds, and 

that is in everybody's interests. 

Similarly, allowing imports of birds that are sustainably harvested from wild populations also can be part of a long-term conservation strategy for these wild populations. In projects all over 

the world, WWF has found that when wildlife resources bring 

value to local communities, the prospects for conservation are 

brighter-people have an incentive to protect the birds and they 

have an incentive to protect the habitat upon which the birds depend. 

Both of these exemptions also pose obvious challenges. We need 

to make sure that in allowing imports from foreign captive breeding facilities we are not establishing fronts for the laundering of 

wild birds. Secondly and more difficult, in allowing the harvest of 

birds from wild populations we need to be sure that those harvests 

are in fact sustainable. As I am sure Dr. Beissinger will talk about 

in more detail, that is no mean feat. 

Our request is simple, and it is that the Fish and Wildlife Service move promptly to issue the final regulations. Those regulations 

need to recognize the hazards of allowing imports under these exemptions and establish requirements sufficiently rigorous to assure 

that we don't inadvertently open up trade that would be detrimental to wild populations. At the same time, the regulations should 

recognize that imports under both of these exemptions can play an 

important role in the conservation of wild populations and the regulations should not raise unnecessary barriers to imports under 

those provisions. 

A related part of the Act that has also not received much attention is the mandate to the Fish and Wildlife Service to find ways 

to help countries develop and implement better programs to manage their wild bird populations to assure that those populations are 

protected and that any trade is sustainable. In my written testimony I have suggested that this can be done under an existing 

partnership between the Fish and Wildlife Service and USAID. 

In summary, this Act is already making a big difference. It does 

not need any significant changes. Fish and Wildlife Service does 

need to move forward with implementation, issuing final regulations, finding a way to help range states improve their management of wild populations and trying to make sure that it gets the 

funds it needs to do that job. Mr. Chairman, we think the Act is 
18 

a success. We ought to leave it untouched and move forward with 

implementation. Thank you. 

[Statement of James P. Leape may be found at end of hearing.) 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Leape. 

Dr. Telecky. 

STATEMENT OF TERESA M. TELECKY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE TRADE PROGRAM, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Dr. TELECKY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Teresa 

Telecky, Director of the Wildlife Trade Program for the Humane 

Society of the United States, and I would like to thank you for this 

opportunity to present testimony today on the Wild Bird Conserva- tion Act on behalf of my organization and seven other animal protection and conservation organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, there is a bird called the Spix's macaw. It is a 

beautiful, long-tailed, bright blue parrot whose natural home is the 

dry woodland of Northeastern Brazil. Spix's macaw is a famous 

bird because of the tragedy that has befallen it. Mr. Chairman, 

there is only one Spix's macaw surviving in the wild. What caused 

the near extinction of Spix's macaw is a price tag that hangs 

around the neck even of this last bird. Of course, Brazil banned the 

collection of this bird long ago, but collectors were willing to buy 

illegal birds and smugglers were willing to deliver the goods for a 

price. The last wild bird is being guarded from trappers who are 

relentless in their attempts to capture it. For my organization and many others, what happened to Spix's 

macaw provides a dramatic example of the damage that has been 

caused by the trade in wild birds. It also provides an example of 

the lengths to which bird collectors will go in order to possess rare 

and valuable birds. And that is why on the third anniversary of the 

passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act we implore Congress to 

reauthorize the Act without any changes that would make it easier 

for wild birds to be imported. Mr. Chairman, the Wild Bird Conservation Act, although not 

even yet fully implemented, has already demonstrated success in 

the conservation of wild birds. The Act has reduced the number of 

birds imported to the U.S. from roughly half a million per year before the passage of the Act to only about 80,000 in 1994. The Act 

has allowed the American market for pet birds to shift to captivebred birds, which make more appropriate pets than wild-caught 

birds anyway. In fact, gross retail sales of pet birds and pet bird 

products have almost doubled since passage of the Act. Reports 

from field biologists studying wild parrots indicate that the Act has 

provided much needed relief from trapping pressure on these species. And finally, since passage of the Act, at least an estimated 3 

million birds have been spared the cruel death commonly encountered in the wild bird trade in which only 20 percent of birds collected from the wild make it to market. Mr. Chairman, the Wild Bird Conservation Act has accomplished 

what Congress intended and it deserves to be reauthorized without 

any changes, changes that might diminish its success. The Wild 

Bird Conservation Act contains carefully crafted language that in 

fact required over six years of negotiation among organizations 
19 

with diverse interests, including conservation organizations, animal 

protection organizations, the pet industry, aviculture and zoos. The 

result is a reasonable law that allows some exceptions without 

flinging the doors open to abuse. The Act allows the importation of 

birds for aviculture. It allows the importation of captive-bred exotic 

birds from foreign qualifying facilities. It allows the importation of 

45 species of birds that are so commonly bred in captivity that no 

one even bothers to collect them from the wild anymore. It even allows the importation of wild-caught birds when it can be shown not 

to cause harm to a wild population or result in unacceptable mortalities. Finally, it does not regulate the trade in birds born in this 

country, unless of course they are of a species that is commonly 

smuggled, in which case the birds may be required to be marked, 

but this is reasonable. And even though we did not get everything 

we wanted out of this negotiating process, we have not reneged on 

our agreement to give full support to the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act. 

In contrast, we know that others have expressed concern about 

sections of the Wild Bird Conservation Act, and especially they are 

frustrated with the length of time that it has taken to promulgate 

regulations. One complaint we have heard is that it is too difficult 

for foreign breeders to become qualified under the Act, but, Mr. 

Chairman, the regulations implementing this portion of the Act 

have not even been promulgated, so they haven't even been tested. 

The process of qualification of foreign bird breeders must be stringent enough to ensure that birds imported from foreign facilities 

are truly bred in captivity or the purpose of the Wild Bird Conservation Act will be defeated. Rare birds will be collected and imported under the guise of being captive-bred. As demonstrated by 

several recent undercover operations conducted by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, it is very easy to pass off a wild bird as one 

that was bred in captivity. 

Another complaint we have heard is that it is too difficult for 

breeders to obtain permission to import birds for captive breeding, 

but in fact only 12 people have even applied to import birds under 

the cooperative breeding program exemption and only two of these 

applications have been denied. In the past decade an estimated 7 

million birds were imported to this country. We believe that there 

already are enough birds in this country to supply most breeders 

with the birds they need. The Wild Bird Conservation Act encourages breeders to evolve from their former pattern of reaching for 

wild birds every time they need new breeding stock. Instead it encourages breeders to cooperate with one another to fully utilize the 

vast gene pool which exists in this country. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the story of the 

Spix's macaw. Just a month ago a captive Spix's macaw was released into the wild near that last wild bird. It is hoped that the 

two will mate, produce offspring and begin to replenish this very 

rare species. Similarly, it is our hope that the Wild Bird Conservation Act will continue to protect wild birds today so that there will 

not be stories like the Spix's macaw tomorrow. Only reauthorization of the Act without changes will produce that result. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 
20 

[Statement of Teresa M. Telecky may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Beissinger. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. BEISSINGER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND CURATOR OF ORNITHOLOGY, SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, YALE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BEISSINGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address this hearing. I am a 

professor in the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 

and a Curator of Ornithology at the Peabody Museum. I would like 

to testify today on behalf of eight organizations of professional ornithologists who study birds. My testimony consists of five consensus 

recommendations for you about the Act. 

First, reauthorize the Exotic Bird Conservation Act. Until the 

passage of the Act, wild birds were being decimated. You have 

heard the stories. You have heard how the trade was ineffectively 

regulated by national or international regulations that were supposed to ensure that trapping for trade was sustainable. It did not. 

It caused quite a large number of species declines and was largely 

ineffective. 

Captive breeding was the major source of individuals in the trade 

for only a handful of species. Most other birds in the trade were 

coming from the wild. The numbers of wild-caught birds were indefensible. The sale had to be stopped before more species were driven to the situation of the Spix's macaw. The Act accomplished this 

goal and the need for it remains today. Populations of most species 

have been severely depleted by decades of overharvesting and require several generations or probably ten to 20 years for them to 

begin to recover. 

The second point I would like to make is that captive populations 

do not conserve endangered species in the wild. Captive breeding 

to recover endangered species requires birds to be introduced to the 

wild at the earliest possible opportunity. Disease risks must be 

minimized by placing birds in single-species facilities, ideally within their native range to minimize the exposure to and introduction 

of exotic diseases to the wild. Special care must be taken to slow 

domestification of birds before they become unlikely to successfully 

survive when reintroduced. All captive breeding programs must 

also be fully integrated with field efforts to protect habitats and 

correct the factors that originally caused the populations to decline. 

Avicultural collections do not meet these requirements. Birds are 

usually kept in close proximity to many other species, so they are 

high disease risks to reintroduce. Furthermore, aviculturists select 

birds to become domesticated. Promotion of captive breeding as 

conservation by aviculturists is sometimes a rationalization for 

keeping exotic birds in captivity in private collections. This excuse 

was used to justify illegal activities by convicted cockatoo smugglers last summer. 

My third recommendation is that captive breeders do not need 

continued access to new stocks. Only limited genetic diversity is required for avicultural collections not used for reintroduction to the 

wild. Fifty to 75 birds per species will capture the genetic diversity 
21 

for this purpose. All species of commercial importance are already 

represented in sufficient numbers in captivity to constitute a viable 

gene pool under active cooperative management. Species with 

fewer individuals obviously are not of commercial importance. If 

aviculturists would manage their gene pools by moving birds 

among private collections, they could take advantage of the great 

genetic diversity that is already present. 

My fourth recommendation is not to amend the Act to exclude 

any bird bred in captivity or overemphasize sustainable harvesting. 

Captive breeding has the allure of potentially reducing pressures 

on wild populations, but amending the Act to allow importation of 

any bird bred in captivity will increase the number of wild birds 

harvested. Because the demand right now far exceeds the capacity 

of breeders to produce exotic birds, there is a great impetus to harvest birds from the wild and sneak them into the trade, as you 

have heard, as captive-bred individuals. Presently no marking system, including closed-ring banding systems, can reliably detect 

laundering of illegal birds. It requires a well-documented pedigree 

and tissue samples for DNA analysis. Serious funding would be 

needed to enforce such legislation. The simplest and most cost-effective way to regulate captive breeding facilities outside the United States is the present list of species that are bred almost entirely 

in captivity and the licensing of breeding facilities on an individual 

basis. 

Sustainable harvesting could also provide conservation and trade 

benefits, but also requires a degree of control that is difficult and 

expensive to achieve. Important biological information to determine 

sustainable levels of harvest have not been gathered for even a single species in the trade, and no ranching projects with wild freeflying birds have ever been done. Without strong controls currently 

in the Act, attempts to sustain harvesting would likely cause more 

conservation problems than they solve. 

Lastly, we would like to suggest that you do something. Do 

amend the Act to include all bird families. Ten bird families were 

exempt from this Act as a result of special interest group lobbying. 

Excluding these so-called game birds and potentially other families 

such as raptors from this legislation reinforces a market for them 

and gives no impetus to develop captive management programs. 

Only a handful of these species are covered by the Endangered 

Species Act or CITES. Many of the rest are thought to be declining 

in the wild. Not only are these families threatened by habitat destruction, but they are often hunted, or in the case of raptors, persecuted throughout their range. It is simply inappropriate to exclude bird families from a conservation act. Instead, let the Fish 

and Wildlife Service regulate which species should be traded. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Steven R. Beissinger may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much for your testimony. You all 

gave very good articulate testimony and I appreciate that very 

much. 

Mr. Herrighty, you testified that you believe that as a representative of the State of New Jersey, which has its own wild bird pro-
22 

gram which exempts New Jersey, I believe, from the provisions of 

this Act, is that correct? 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. No, that is not correct. Ours is stricter in that 

we don't have as many exemptions on birds on the so-called captive 

exempt list, but we are not exempt by any Federal regulations. 

Mr. SAXTON. It is fair to say that the Federal law does not supersede the state law, is it not? 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. Federal law does supersede the state law. States 

may be stricter, but not more liberal. 

Mr. SAXTON. So in your case the state law applies? 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. Yes. 

Mr. SAXTON. How much-and is your law more stringent than 

the Federal law? I should say our law of New Jersey. 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. Yes. Our law is more stringent in that the Wild 

Bird Conservation Act will-as it is currently written it has a larger number, 45 birds that we heard, that are now allowed to be imported and that are considered totally captive-bred. That is all that 

is being traded. In New Jersey there are only five species of birds 

that fall under that category. Also we require banding as our act 

mandates that we come up with a methodology to distinguish wildcaught or pre-act birds that are wild caught from any birds now 

coming into the state or bred in captivity. So we have banding or 

microchipping that is a requirement for any birds now bred in captivity in New .Jersey. 

Mr. SAXTON. Can you tell me what your budget is in New Jersey? 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. My budget for my exotic section, which deals 

with all non-game and exotic species as far as permit requirements 

is about $130,000. I have one zoologist, one technician and several 

clerks. We increased the permit fee for bird hobbyists from ten to 

$20 in order to raise additional funds to help administer our wild 

bird act regulations. We have taken some heat for that and we may 

adjust it as we see what our real costs are. Our problem is that 

we are under a hiring freeze in state government. I have the money 

to hire additional people, but I cannot do that right now. 

Mr. SAXTON. So we in New Jersey spend on your program, on 

the-in the neighborhood of $130,000? 

Mr. HERRIGHTY. That is for the administration of all non-game 

and exotic permits, which include wild birds, parrots and others, 

yes. 

Mr. SA.t'\TON. It is kind of interesting this is the feds. We feds 

spend, apparently, about $100,000 to administer the Act for the 

whole country and New Jersey spends $130,000 for our little state. 

It is kind of «n interesting contrast. I am not quite sure how we 

feds are so effi.dent. Let me ask Jim Leape and Dr. Telecky and Dr. Beissinger, in 

1972 when the Wild Bird Conservation Act was-92 when the Wild 

Bird Conserv&t!on Act 1Nas passed, it had the active support of the 

environmental community, including the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and the ATI1erican Federation of Aviculturists. Today 

these two groups, the two groups that I just mentioned, are seeking 

changes or repeal of the Wild Bird Conservation Act. Would you respond to why you think that is and are there some changes that 

we need to make in order to make this bill more efficient? And if 

so, what do you think they are? 
23 

Mr. LEAPE. I will go first. I haven't heard their testimony yet, so 

I don't know specifically what concerns they have. I think there is 

some grounds for frustration. The implementation of part of the 

Act has been slow, in particular the two sets of regulations that I 

mentioned in my testimony. We do think that the regulations already in place, specifically those for permits, that allow permits or 

authorized permits for cooperative breeding programs are legitimate regulations. I believe that the requirements imposed-the 

two-page permit application and the information asked of each cooperative breeding program-are a reasonable set of requirements. 

I think there has been frustration that sometimes the processing 

of permits takes too long. My understanding is that on average it 

has taken something like six months. Now although some of that 

may be slowness in the applicant providing necessary information, 

clearly some of it also is slowness in processing permits. And as 

you suggest, $100,000 for the entire country is not a lot to administer a permit program and I would be surprised if we had any dissent on this panel or the next that the government ought to have 

more resources to make this program work, both to make it work 

efficiently for those who need permits and also for it to be effective 

for those concerned about conservation of wild populations. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Dr. Telecky. 

Dr. TELECKY. Yes. Well, like Mr. Leape I haven't seen AFA and 

PIJAC's testimony on this issue, but as I testified today, I know of 

at least two areas that they are concerned with. One is the foreign 

qualifying facilities, but I think in that case it is a little bit of the 

fear of the unknown because those regulations have not been finalized yet and so it really hasn't been put to a test. The other issue 

that I am aware of is the permit application procedure for cooperative breeding programs, which I also addressed. There is a permit 

procedure out there and operating right now, and as I testified, 

there have been 12 applications and only two of those have been 

denied. And I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service is trying to 

streamline that process a little bit more. I also would agree with 

Mr. Leape in that I would assume that additional funding provided 

for the purposes of implementing the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

could only, you know, help in terms of getting the regulations out 

there a little bit faster and getting those permits processed a little 

bit more quickly. Thank you. 

Mr. SAXTON. If it is taking six months to get a permit, at least 

in many cases, it would seem to me that this Act would be working 

very well in terms of keeping the number of birds that are imported into the country at a low number and certainly that was not 

the intent of this panel when the bill was passed. Would you agree 

with that statement? 

Dr. TELECKY. I would certainly agree with that. 

Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Beissinger. 

Dr. BEISSINGER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. This Act, and the changes 

requested in the Act, are because the Act results in a change in 

business. The business expectations now are different. No longer 

can aviculture and the pet industry have complete, uncontrolled access to wild bird populations. That results in some changes that 

need to be made within the avicultural community to adjust, and 

those changes take time. Aviculturists need to organize themselves 
24 

in a different manner than they have worked before, and that 

change means that they need to coordinate among themselves the 

exchange of their birds and develop stud books and manage their 

genetic resources and manage their birds, not just consider them 

as personal pets, not just only reach to the wild each time they 

would like to have new blood stock. This kind of organization will 

take a little time to put in place, but the avicultural community 

stands to gain much by it if they would do that. So I do think that 

this is the other issue that we have to deal with here, changes that 

we are asking of this community that result from no longer relying 

on the wild populations. Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much. I have no further questions at this time. The members of the subcommittee may have 

some additional questions, particularly those who are not able to 

be with us this morning, and so the record will remain open. We 

may ask you to respond to further questions in writing. Thank you 

very much. 

Now let me introduce our fourth and final panel: Mr. Frank 

Bond, who is the General Counsel of the North American Falconers 

Association; Mr. Marshall Meyers of the Pet Industry Joint Council; Dr. Susan Clubb of the Association of Avian Veterinarians; and 

Gary Lilienthal, General Counsel to the American Federation of 

Aviculture. Once again, each of you will have five minutes for your 

oral testimony. Your written testimony will appear in the record as 

you submit it. And we will begin with Mr. Frank Bond. You may 

proceed, sir. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK BOND, GENERAL COUNSEL, NORTH 

AMERICAN FALCONERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BoND. 1'hank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have submitted a written statement which I would like 

to have printed as part of the record. 

I am Frank Bond. I serve as General Counsel for the North 

American Falconers Association and have had the pleasure of being 

at a committee table like this many times before. Unfortunately 

when Mr. Leape had suggested that they put together the working 

group to deal with this issue, we were not invited to that 

windowless room to collaborate with them. And frankly, it wasn't 

an oversight on their part, because the first iteration of the Act in 

1992 really didn't deal with the issues of captive propagation with 

respect to raptors and the import/export problems dealing with 

Falconiformes, the family Falconiformes including raptors, until 

the final bill came out when we found we got swept in as well. And 

so for that reason I apologize for coming to the table three years 

later, but want to express our problems and our opinion. 

Falconiformes, birds of prey, can only be used for several purposes: education, conservation programs, captive propagation, falconry, zoological programs, and rehabilitation purposes. Probably 

as a group of birds it is the most highly regulated group of birds 

in North America and indeed in the world. They are listed-virtually every single member of the family of Falconiformes is listed 

under Appendix I or Appendix II of CITES. For somebody to come 

in and import a bird or export a bird he has to comply with 50 

C.F.R., the Code of Federal Regulations, at 21.28, 21.29, 22.24, 
25 

21.30. He has to seek an MBTA import or export permit, and he 

has to comply with the additional requirements imposed by CITES. 

And then for those few birds, not only the peregrine falcon, for any 

import or export then he has to also seek an additional ESA permit. 

When the ranking minority member had said it was a first-time 

regulated group of people and they are getting used to the Act, we 

have been used to it for a long time. If Mr. Striegler of law enforcement were sitting here, he would recall a meeting that I had with 

Mr. Doggett, Chief of Law Enforcement with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, who said isn't there any way that we can decrease the 

number of regulations dealing with raptors. And frankly, we have 

resisted. We have a marking system. We have a requirement of apprenticeship. We have very stringent requirements for facilities and 

examinations. The same things go for people who would seek to 

captively breed raptors in captive propagation programs as well. 

So we come to point out to this committee that despite all of 

those purposes, there is one purpose that we are not allowed to 

keep raptors for, which is the basic intent of this Act; and, that is 

for pet purposes. You cannot keep a raptor in America for pet purposes, so the basic intent of the Act really doesn't adequately cover 

any problems with raptors that might not be covered with all of the 

other acts. Consequently, notwithstanding the recommendation of 

the gentleman from Yale, we really believe that the Falconiformes 

family ought to be exempted from the Act so that the WBCA more 

appropriately can be focused on the real problems that you discussed with the previous panels and more broadly with the remainder of this panel. 

What WBCA means is that for people who are dealing with 

raptors, it means just one more permit. That is, we are up to five 

permits instead of just four now without the WBCA. I will tell you, 

though, that with respect to the fact that we have had to deal with 

it for the past couple of years until this reauthorization hearing, of 

the captive propagation programs which have been approved, probably the majority have been for captive propagation programs dealing with raptors. And that is frankly because the Service has dealt 

with us for a long time, knows who we are and knows the standards that we have to live with. So I am sure it has been a lot easier 

for the Service to deal with us than it has for some of the other 

bird groups. 

But it brings us to a broader problem, particularly with the Service and the permitting activities. We routinely have permit requests that go six to nine months without a decision. We are veryfeel very lucky any time it is under 120 days, and what-when people talk about the system and feel that it maybe doesn't need much 

more than a little tweaking, a little work here and there, I find 

that the permit system is not broken. It doesn't need a little tweaking. The permit system at the Fish and Wildlife Service is in complete meltdown. It needs to be rebuilt, and I think this committee 

and other committees in Congress that deal with it really need to 

deal with that part of assisting the Service to integrate a program 

so that we have single permitting system for the various purposes 

and to assist them in their capacity to issue permits timely within 

the standards that they are being guided by. And I do hope that 
26 

when you look at this you can look at those particular problems, 

but as you are looking at this particular Act that you really closely 

define what it is that you intend to do with the Act, the families 

of birds that you intend to really attempt to regulate and to control. 

Then the last thing, Mr. Chairman, is I think the lady from the 

Humane Society makes a point. We have to treat these birds humanely. Falconiformes can only be shipped one per container. 

Those standards are set by the International Air Transport Association under Container Requirement Number 20. We simply aren't 

facing those kinds of problems that the pet bird industry is facing. 

Consequently, we think that probably four permits plus these 

standards are enough, and that probably we are adding to the burden the Service now carries by having one more permit applying 

to Falconiformes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Frank M. Bond may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Bond. Mr. Meyers. 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MEYERS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL COUNSEL, PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY 

COUNCIL 

Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, my name is Marshall Meyers. I am 

appearing today as Executive Vica President and General Counsel 

for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on implementation or lack thereof of this 

Act. PIJAC has been involved with this issue since its genesis. 

When I hear today about the fear of the unknown, both from the 

Humane Society of the United States and from Mr. Studds, I guess 

I am just an old-time country boy here in this town who has become very fearful of the unknown in de&ling with Federal regulators. I don't really believe they are there to help us. 

Passage of the Wild Bird Act was a result of significant compromises from a number of varied interest groups. Unfortunately, 

some of the reservations that we raised during that period have become a reality. Three years after enactment the pet industry, aviculture and others supportive of sustainable use programs anxiously await implementation of those portions of the regulations 

that would facilitate this activity and also that of facilitating the 

approval of foreign captive breeding facilities. 

While it may have been the intent of Congress that the Act 

would accomplish these laudable goals, we question if that is the 

Service's real intent. The proposed regulations governing approval 

of foreign captive breeding facilities and foreign sustainable use 

conservation export programs are so restrictive, burdensome and 

full of disincentives, not incentives, for engaging in these activities 

as contemplated by Congress. Regulations need to be implemented 

quickly for this Act rather than languishing in the recesses of the 

agency. 

The impact of the Act on the commercial pet bird industry has 

been and continues to be significant. It has destroyed the import 

industry and adversely affected the supply of birds both captivebred and wild-caught, prior to enactment approximately 30 to 40 

active importers, today six to seven. 
27 

Somewhat amused to hear the statistics about the growth in the 

industry when the state of the industry report, which is published 

in the spring of each year, shows the growth in the bird industry, including birds and bird products, was 3.8 percent. The overall industry had substantial growth, but not in the bird products and the 

number of birds. And also when I heard the comments from New 

Jersey that they have issued 4000 permits. National surveys indicate, depending which survey, between 10 or 15 percent of U.S. 

households own birds. I suspect then we have an incredible number 

of cockatiels, budgies and common-those five species in New Jersey and that everybody in New Jersey is licensed. I don't believe 

it. I think it is highly improbable, that the New Jersey law is really 

not effective. 

But despite these implementation problems, be it at the state or 

the Federal level, we remain hopeful that this Act can become an 

effective conservation tool. Its future success will require several 

amendments and far greater Congressional oversight than has existed in the past three years. If this Act is meeting its objectives, 

amendments, not repeal-and we have never advocated repeal, but 

we have been classified or characterized as enemies of this Actare required. And possibly they are required because the Service 

feels that it is constrained by some of the language and the criteria 

and therefore that they have no alternative but to put in some of 

these overly demanding requirements. 

Therefore, we believe that Section 113 to carry out the original 

intent regarding CITES Appendix III birds that are not covered 

by-should not be covered by-this Act unless they are coming 

from the country that lists them. The Appendix III issue is complex. Appendix III listed species are not subject to the CITES review and scientific scrutiny of the other species. In fact, a country 

can put them on and hold the rest of the world hostage. 

Think, sir, if the State of California decided to put in some type 

of restriction prohibiting the export of a particular species out of 

the State of California, if the same standard of the act is applied 

to foreign nations applied to the United States, New Jersey, Texas, 

Montana could not export those animals raised in their state, and 

your individual state would have had no say in how that came 

about. So if we are going to start infringing on sovereign rights, 

then maybe we should start infringing on states rights. I think this 

is an issue that should be looked at very carefully. Number two, reauthorize the Act with recommendations for adequate funding to properly implement. Number three, direct the 

Secretary to fully implement the Act by expeditiously promulgating 

user-friendly, reasonable and workable regulations with respect to 

the two remaining areas that are still in question and to look at 

Sections 106 and 107, particular with respect to importing captivebred birds to make sure they can come in in a more freely way 

than proposed. And periodically convene Congressional oversight 

hearings at least annually until the committee is satisfied that the 

Act is being properly implemented. 

I have included in my written testimony some detailed comments 

regarding the rules governing the approval process of the two outstanding areas. The proposed criteria are detailed. They are staggering and may impose regulations and data collection require-
28 

ments even our government couldn't do and may have to try to do 

to allow the export of box turtles under Appendix II. Most importantly, U.S. Government would impose these requirements and possibly effect the sovereignty of some of these foreign governments. 

No foreign captive breeder, no foreign government, no U.S. importer will make the substantial investments in light of the high 

probability of denial of Fish and Wildlife Service by the risk of running afoul of overly aggressive, overly zealous Fish and Wildlife enforcement. 

It should be emphasized we are not asking and have never asked 

for repeal, and I say that again. But I also don't want the committee to be misled by departmental protestations regarding criticism 

of proposed regulations and claims that such criticism is premature. No matter what excuses or cloak the Department wraps 

around its actions by characterizing the regulations as tentative, 

conceptual or ideas published for public comment, the 

underpinnings clearly indicate a different departmental philosophy. 

Conclusion is simple. We must carefully scrutinize the events of 

the past three years, including the language of the regulations, and 

then look at what the Act has failed to do. And the bottom line is 

also simple, that adopting unobtainable criteria is nothing more 

than a smoke screen. It is an effective ban, not a conservation tool. 

We are willing to work with this committee and with the Department to try to get these regulations out and to make this an effective conservation act, but we must have regulations to be met, not 

impossibility of compliance. Thank you. 

[Statement of Marshall Meyers may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Dr. Clubb. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN L. CLUBB, DVM, ASSOCIATION OF 

AVIAN VETERINARIANS 

Dr. CLUBB. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Susan 

Clubb and I represent the Association of Avian Veterinarians, a 

professional association of some 3000 veterinarians. The AA V has 

a strong commitment to conservation of wild and captive birds. Unlike any other veterinary organization, we donate one percent of 

our net income to support conservation projects every year. We 

support the WBCA and we feel that the Act should be reauthorized, but with amendments. Some recommendations for amendments are contained in my written testimony, and we support the 

amendments proposed by AF A. 

My written testimony is before you, but I would like to speak to 

you today from the heart. As a point of introduction, I worked as 

a veterinarian for a large importation company for 11 years. I know 

firsthand the problems of the trade and I personally worked toward 

resolution of these problems and reasonable legislation to solve 

them. I was a member of the cooperative working group on bird 

trade representing AA V. I continue to work and live as an avian 

veterinarian and an aviculturist. 

Mr. Chairman, an exemption is not an exemption if it is unattainable. Being unattainable may be real or it may be conceptual. 

We are here today because many people affected by this Act feel 

that some sections of the Act and the regulations promulgated by 
29 

the Service are burdensome, restrictive and unattainable. Ad· a department in the largest government or business in the world, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should act as a service to those affected. This is not the perception that is prevalent in the public sector. Obviously the Service has a law enforcement responsibility, 

which is vital to the control of trade, but encouragement of legal, 

legitimate and non-detrimental trade is the American way of doing 

business. 

It is with some trepidation that I make these comments because 

I have in the past and will continue to seek permits from the Service. Past experiences as an applicant have often been frustrating at 

best. I hope as a result of my comments today that the future will 

not be more frustrating. 

Laws are not written for the lawless. They are guideposts by 

which law-abiding citizens conduct their personal lives and businesses. No amount of regulation will prevent the determined criminal from smuggling. Extensive regulation, however, does suppress 

honest enterprise. The best law cannot work if the regulatory 

agents entrusted with enforcement are tardy, insensitive or overzealous. Would this description fit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

handling of the WBCA? Is it appropriate that final rules for two 

of the most important exemptions allowed under the Act have not 

been published almost three years after enactment? These are 

questions for this committee. I would like to challenge the Service 

or this committee to examine this issue, perhaps by a poll of persons making previous applications, WBCA applications, CITES or 

otherwise. Ask them about their experiences with the Service. Perhaps my perception is not widespread, but I think it is. 

To summarize my written testimony, I would like to address 

some specific areas of concern. Regarding Section 115, marking and 

record keeping is vital to successful avicultural management, but 

government involvement or mandated marking is inappropriate. 

Many veterinarians routinely remove bands from birds due to the 

risk of injury. The Service has stated that they don't intend to use 

this section. It is contentious and has no conservation benefit. 

USDA already marks legal psittacine (parrot) imports. This section 

should be removed from the Act. 

Regarding Section 107, subsection (b)(6), all birds exported from 

an approved facility must be bred at that facility. This section was 

viewed as potentially problematic in the legislative history. It 

makes economically viable exports from small entities virtually impossible. This section should be removed. 

And finally, as expressed earlier, we are concerned about the 

handling of the WBCA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We 

support the WBCA and reauthorization of the Act. We also genuinely hope that the Service will be fair and reasonable and will 

process applications promptly and with sensitivity and respect for 

the public. 

Of the 673 WBCA permit applications received by the Service as 

of the end of August, 620 or 92 percent were for pet birds of U.S. 

citizens returning to the U.S. What about other applicants and the 

other exemptions? There have been only 53 applications for all the 

other exemptions. 34 of those applications or 64 percent were approved. Are people afraid to apply? 
30 

Mr. Chairman, we ask you to evaluate this situation and instruct 

the Service to work in a way which is consistent with the intent 

of Congress and with the best interest of our citizens. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate having the opportunity to testify before you 

today and will be available for any questions. Thank you. 

[Statement of Dr. Susan L. Clubb may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Gary, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GARY LILIENTHAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF AVICULTURE, INC. 

Mr. LILIENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished chair 

and members of the subcommittee, my name is Gary Lilienthal and 

I am the Vice President and General Counsel and an aviculturist 

testifying on behalf of the American Federation of Aviculture and 

the 300 avicultural organizations, exotic bird breeders and businesses which have eagerly signed onto Aviculture's written testimony. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize the dozens of 

aviculturists from across the United States who have taken time 

and their personal funds to be here today. We aviculturists are the 

people who keep, breed and raise exotic, non-native birds. We are 

dedicated to the conservation of exotic birds both in the wild and 

captivity. The mission of AFA is to preserve avian species on a 

worldwide basis. AF A is the largest exotic bird humane and educational organization in the United States. 

In 1992 AFA had serious misgivings about certain elements of 

the WBCA. Yet we wholeheartedly supported its mandate for conservation and wise use of exotic birds. Aviculture's support was ultimately based on one important cornerstone of the WBCA, promotion of captive breeding and the free importation of captive-bred 

birds into the United States. Congress agreed and they named the 

WBCA the "Breeders Bill." We are here today because the WBCA 

has yet to fulfill its promise. We do not now seek repeal of the 

WBCA. In spite of what you may have been told, we want to see 

it work. 

In order for it to do so, the WBCA regulations which have effectively caused a ban on the trade in exotic birds, even in captivebred birds, must be redirected to the conservation and captive 

breeding principles that the WBCA intended. Mr. Chairman, Congress intended that the WBCA be the Wild Bird Conservation Act. 

Somewhere along the way to the Act being implemented through 

its regulations it became a different WBCA. It became the Way to 

Best Control Aviculture Act. 

We believe that the following specific changes must be made in 

order for the WBCA to be effective. And I will enumerate them. 

They are specifically set out in our written testimony. First, authorized funds must be appropriated and used for sustainable use 

studies in range countries to promote sustainable trade where appropriate. Second, the actual scope of the smuggling problem and 

the enforcement activities of the Fish and Wildlife Service's deterring of legitimate aviculture should be investigated. Representative 

Ewing spoke eloquently for our fears too. Third, Section 105 should 
31 

be amended to specify that the WBCA's coverage of exotic birds 

listed on Appendix III of CITES should only relate to birds found 

in the countries of listing, as was intended by both the WBCA and 

CITES. Fourth, the permit process under the regulations in Section 

112(2) relating to the importation of personal pet birds should be 

simplified. And we are delighted to hear about Fish and Wildlife's 

progress in this. Fifth, Section 112(4) should be amended to eliminate the regulatory requirement of tracking and reporting of U.S. 

captive-bred offspring of imported birds. Sixth, regulations under 

Section 107, which will promote captive breeding of exotic birds 

and ensure the free importation of captive-bred birds into the United States, must be promptly adopted based upon the six-point approval process proposed by AFA in its written testimony. Seventh, 

Section 106(b)(l) must be amended to provide that if a species is 

regularly bred in captivity and wild-caught members of that species 

are not in legal trade, it shall be placed on the captive-bred species 

list as intended by Congress. Current regulations improperly disqualify species regularly bred in captivity from being on the list if 

any members of that species are in illegal trade. This policy promotes smuggling. I would point out to the Chair that 45 species are 

approved. It is my information that approximately 8600 species 

exist. Eighth, sections 114(c) and 115 on marking should be eliminated. Finally, a new section must be added to provide that notwithstanding any law, regulation or policy to the contrary, exotic 

birds bred from parent birds in the United States shall be considered legal regardless of a legality of their ancestral stock. 

AF A and aviculture sincerely hope that the various communities 

concerned with the trade in exotic birds will understand that these 

recommendations are constructive and will implement the intent of 

Congress for sustainable trade and the promotion of captive breeding and importation of captive-bred exotic birds into the United 

States. If the humane, conservation, animal rights, anti-trade and 

government regulatory communities cannot wholeheartedly support 

the eventual sustainable trade in and wise use of wild-caught exotic birds pursuant to appropriate management programs and the 

free trade and importation of captive-bred exotic birds into the 

United States, then AFA would consider requesting the repeal of 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act as it would then be clear that the 

support by these groups for this law is really based upon using the 

WBCA as a ban on trade in exotic birds, captive bred or otherwise. 

This would destroy aviculture and it will not save the birds. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present our views, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

[Statement of Gary Lilienthal may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We will certainly take note 

of your specific recommendations on various sections of the Act and 

try to evaluate those. I would like to try to find a bottom line, and 

all of you seem to indicate that you think the Act is a good idea, 

that there are maybe some changes that ought to be made to it. 

I didn't hear anyone say that it shouldn't exist at all, and so I 

guess it is our job to try and determine what kinds of changes we 

need to make either to the law or administratively to make it work 

so that you don't have to wait six to nine months to obtain a permit. 
32 

Now when I look at one of the aspects of this, and I brought this 

up when Mr. Jones was testifying, and that is that we estimated 

as a committee that this could cost as much as $5 million a year 

to do an adequate job in carrying out the provisions of the Act. Mr. 

Jones testified, I think I heard correctly, and some of you folks are 

still here, you can correct me if I am wrong, that we spend about 

$100,000 a year carrying out the provisions of the Act. Now it is 

impossible, it seems to me, to do any kind of an adequate job of 

either promulgating regulations in an adequate fashion or in carrying out the permitting process with $100,000, which pays a person 

or two to do the job for the entire country. Do you see that as a 

primary problem that we have here? I am not a-I am a fairly conservative guy when it comes to spending money, but if we are going 

to have a law that says that certain things are provided in the law 

that have to be done, somebody has to request the money to do it. 

Is that a fair assessment? Do I gather that correctly? Anybody 

want to comment? 

Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is absolutely a fair question, but it goes to a broader problem. I think you probably better 

look at the whole permitting system, not out of criticism, but outin terms of providing some assistance. I believe that maybe there 

was $100,000 dedicated specifically to the WBCA, but I believe it 

is fair to characterize Mr. Jones' testimony that they had approximately $500,000 to run the whole program. I think this is just--

Mr. SAXTON. I think he said they had-they requested and received $500,000 in fiscal year '94. 

Mr. MEYERS. Oh. 

Mr. SAXTON. They requested zero in fiscal year '95 and zero in 

fiscal year '96, and transferred some money from some other accounts. And if it is more than $100,000 that took place in transfer, 

please somebody in the first-that is what it is? 

Mr. MEYERS. It seems to me from what I heard from the testimony that they just wrapped it in, but I am not going to answer 

for him. 

Mr. SAXTON. You know, we-just to further make this point, the 

African Elephant Conservation Act we appropriated last year $1.2 

million, which I assume the Administration requested part of. The 

Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act we appropriated $400,000 and 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act that we are talking about today is 

a goose egg, and that didn't work, it seems to me. Doctor? 

Dr. CLUBB. If I may make one comment in that regard. In January of this year I became very frustrated because of an excessive 

delay in issuance by the Service of an Appendix I captive-bred export permit, CITES permit, and I submitted a FOIA (Freedom of 

Information Act) request to the Service for similar exports of Appendix I captive-bred psittacines in the previous year, in 1994. 

Seven months later I got the reply on the FOIA request. It was a 

one-page reply and the cover letter stated that due to difficulties 

in dealing with their computer system it took them that long to 

supply this information. I think that our government should have 

top quality computer equipment. If they simply have the tools to 

work with, then perhaps they can work efficiently. If it takes them 

seven months to generate a one-letter reply to a FOIA request, 

then obviously their technology is not adequate in today's time. 
33 

Mr. LILIENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I would like to respond, as well. I see 

this much more globally, perhaps, in that I think that the lack of 

funding is a breach of faith with the groups, including three of the 

people sitting on this panel, that sat for five years and gave their 

time to help this law come into effect, as well as a breach of faith 

with the congressmen who are on this committee. It is a breach of 

faith with the countries that were told that if they could put together sustainable use programs, they would again be able to trade 

with the U.S. if that trade were properly managed. Without the 

funding which was supposed to be used in part to help establish 

sustainable use programs-! don't think I heard here, and I would 

like to be corrected if I am wrong-that anybody said that the birds 

which are not coming into the United States anymore aren't going 

elsewhere. So we haven't solved the problem. We have merely redirected it, perhaps. Without the money to fund sustainable use 

trade and management programs in foreign countries, we aren't 

saving birds. We are merely covering up the problem. 

There are 18 million pet birds in the United States. And we talk 

about $1.2 million for Mrican Elephants and some millions of dollars for tigers, and while I am not against that, I would think that 

zero for exotic birds is a little bit, just slightly out of proportion. 

Mr. SAXTON. I am for conservation of elephants and rhinos and 

lions and tigers and endangered species and all the others. I can't 

for the life of me understand why birds aren't just as important. 

Mr. Meyers. 

Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, also during the deliberations there 

was some discussion about how other parts of the world deal with 

this issue. The European Union does work very closely with underdeveloped countries in helping them coming up with quotas that 

are allowed into Europe. They put money out into the field, 

through NORAD, which is a Norwegian assistance fund. They put 

money where their mouth is. This Act put money up, but they 

didn't put it where our mouth is. And I think that is the bottom 

line, and I think if we could get some money appropriated, do some 

foreign assistance programs, come up with some model programs 

that could meet the final regulations, I think that is what is desperately needed. We are cautious, however, and when I made my comments about 

the amendments, the Department may well feel that they are 

somewhat constrained because of the scientifically based language 

that was written into the statute and undefined criteria. The 

money to run a study to meet the criteria that are proposed, $5 

million will not be enough. And I think that is the thing that Congress has to address. 

Mr. SAXTON. Let me just ask a question for anybody to respond 

to who would like to. Have any regulations issued by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service had the effect of making it virtually impossible 

to legally import captive-bred exotic birds into the United States? 

Mr. LILIENTHAL. It is impossible to legally import captive-bred 

exotic birds into the United States from qualifying facilities because there are no regulations. 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-do you believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes 
34 

that bird breeders have a role to play in increasing both the number and size of the gene pool for exotic birds? 

Mr. LILIENTHAL. I will take that one again as one of the two 

aviculturists on the panel. I think perhaps these questions are 

maybe for us to answer. We believe that the need for increased 

gene pools is a must. Dr. Beissinger mentions 50 to 75 birds. I have 

been told by our director of conservation, Dr. Benny Gallaway, who 

has a Ph.D. in wildlife and fisheries services, that the current norm 

is 1000 birds for a viable gene pool. We are finding now that in 

some of the species that we are not able to import anymore that 

are shorter-lived, such as the finches, are experiencing a drop-off 

in the diversity in their gene pool, and we are concerned about inbreeding. 

We are also concerned because as we are unable to increase gene 

pools, that acts as an enticement to unscrupulous people for illegal 

activity-smuggling. Aviculturists abhor smuggling. Smuggled 

birds are dangerous to avicultural collections. They bring in disease. AFA is the only organization in the United States of which 

I am aware which has produced a bilingual, multi-colored antismuggling poster and we donated it to the Fish and Wildlife Service. I actually presented a copy of this poster to this committee 

when it held the WBCA hearings. We have a copy of it on display 

here today. We are very concerned about the dilution of gene pools 

and what is going to happen if we cannot at least bring in captivebred birds, never mind wild-caught birds under sustainable trade. 

And the gene pool issue is a major issue for us. 

Dr. CLUBB. There are many species in the United States for 

which we have developed avicultural techniques and have developed very large gene pools and very stable populations. There are 

other species for which we have not developed these techniques yet 

or perhaps they were imported in fair numbers many years ago 

when birds were imported for the pet trade didn't fall into the 

hands of responsible aviculturists in time to establish these birds. 

As we become more sophisticated, we think we should get an opportunity to work with these species again. And we would prefer 

to bring in captive-bred birds if they are available and if the regulations will allow us to bring in captive-bred birds. If not, we feel 

that we can be responsible and bring in low numbers for captive 

breeding from the wild without damaging wild populations unless 

it is a bird like the Spix's macaw. Obviously we don't intend to try 

to import rare and highly endangered birds for aviculture unless it 

is absolutely necessary. 

Mr. SAXTON. OK, well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We appreciate it very much. This subcommittee does take its work 

very seriously and we will certainly try to work with the Service 

to try to provide a better situation within which you all work and 

literally live. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned; and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
35 

THE WHITE HOUSE 

May 31, 1994 

Ms. Peg Bar}:on 

Rnral Route 112 

Monticello, Illinois 61856 

Dear Peg: 

1b.ank you for your lett::r. I appreciate your 

thoughtfulness in sctJding me che dre:L'll ca.tcller. 

I love the beautiful 1cgcnd af the dream caicner, and · 

I"m pleased to have this symbol of native American wUdom. 

love, and Cil:ativity in the White House to commemornte my 

dclig htfu1 vi5it to east central lllinois. 

With best w.ishc:~, I am 

Sincerely yours, 
36 

);;..~· : : . ;'}95 

A:J c· c = ""'· !Wiollll pn:a hu roltal the .wry about the 'gift' Elmer Purecll &Dd I gave to tho Fir<t LAd y, 

,:,- "'"""'"'"'t invootigat:on wd impen.dinr proo<CUtion by the U. S. Fll>h and WildU fe, Di visiOn of Law 

<::.: o:-x:::=: aru! th< U. S. Justice Departlll<DL Mrs. Cl.intoo'a dmLmc&lchcr (wruch """' an.oJyud by the 

::-.i ~="""" WtitutiOil) oontail>od 11 fe&lhen picked up from the rround by my oon &Dd I .: the Cclun:hta 

r'"v ~ Zoo, Cc!umhia, SC, 3 Jivea 1o me by abUDt«, ODd 2 I plucked from • road-b!J owl. 

Ir: e ~ of Jllinou, ALL binla with the oxoeption of the common howe spurow, pizeon one North Ammcan 

.i.::; L--c 'proteetlld' by either .wa or fodtnllawt. Migra<ory binla (bluojay, owl, c:arcfulal, """"'• C=adi.a.a 

0::>=) L"= fodenlly protc:c1od. What doca 'prol<dod' mean? 

';::: ~1. .,-. ~ry Birtl Treory Aa of 196311ala In pott: • ... it shill be Wllowful al any time, by wy m<aru <><i.e any 

=-·""'· t:: ... tab (coUcct), poaseea, offer for aale, aell, tramport or <:&ll80 to be tn.nsporu.d, C1tT)' or cauu to be 

"""'"" o' roceived u:y miEf&IOty bird, ID)' part, ony n.esl or <U of a.ay IUCh birtl, or a.cy product, whelher or 

wt:;.:.\:r co< manufacturod , which CODiio:J, or iJ composed in wbolo or put, of t.ny sucb bird or L:lY put, nc.s: or 

eb.;~f. .. • 

Tioe lla! d ODd Oold Eagle Prottai0t1 ACl 11t11a that i& iJ unlawf\11 to:" ... lcnowingly, ot with wanton disrcalt'd for 

1-':c CO!lS<:G == ofhiJ act, to &alco (collect), poaea, .. u. purchu4, barter, offer to .. u. purelluo or barter, or 

=-.?Ott .: any time or in IllY IIWIII« my bald CIOJio or goldtn catle, .L!ive or dead, or Ally part, ae<t or egr 

tbereof, withou: beinriJ"cificaUy pcrudwd co c1o ao by ,...Wa&ioo or llatua. • 

Prolec!kG means rou MAY NOT AT ANYTIME OR FOR ANY REASON PICK UP A FEATHER! 

l."='Onl!l::4 of the Ltw it no& on excuae to -..pe piOiballion. Poaeaioo Ia a "otrict liability" crime IDC&Ilinr it iJ 

. i.":'tlev~t whether or not you laiDw wbal :rou 110 cloinf ia wroaa. Ic ia ...., by the fod=-al •emci"' Ch&l becaU50 

·Y"" po&oee.o tho feathe:l, yon..., pill)'. 

·Surely:· you havo an opinion about chiJI aa&iollll iDcidtnl bappeaillf righc bcre ill MoaticeUo. (Yau'cl bll amaz.od at 

;aooe of the people I've beitd from over chiJIDC:WIJIIPCf colllllllll) I am byinf to mUller local public lllpport for 

c:y ot by ul::inr you t.o immodialoly coalll:l all thAI people listed below· by ph0110, fax, loaer. ToU &hem w!W 

;yc-J l!!!.r.l: about &he aituatioo. You may eveu lcaow other people wbo should be cuUzbtenod abow chiJI crue t.o Lifo 

~L~ tliaois dnm.t. Keep ill mind, ia tho last three day•, Co!lrreu hal boe:1 discwaing major cu~ in Depatt=t 

cf l.otei. or whicll be.ada U.S. Fish a.cd W'lldUfo. lbcy havo recxatly wr=.lod wilh the Erulangerecj Sp<>eiee Act I!UI 

the i -;•" it bu como to have "" our citi=a. 

eue bow I 1111 to appear In fodenl court durinJ &he firne.,..,.Jc of Auf\111 &o ccter a zui!ty pl..._ Ttmo i.t rn:cw. 

Welcomo to my .o.i~ ••• 

/""\ . /' /) . ~ . ./, _,.__::;-,./..-. . I 

''!'; ('\'e;::.J:;:>::) '&:'lf"'~ r. ;-~ :. . e ..:: :l77 
37 

~7i l_O /"iS"" 

Gift ma~-~DX!~ J!cJr<lish for first lady 

Ry PETER ROONEY Jaw. An mdtvid· tive American requests for eJ~Ie 

Ncw,-GfLlotw Star! Wtltet 

C!-·i!CAGO - An agent o( the 

:.:.s. Fish & \.\r'ildiife Se rv1ce sald t~ ~:. tech:1!Cally, first lady Hillary Rochal':1 C'il"ton could be 

cha :-ged wit!': violat!ng two fed · 

e:-a! ::>i:d prc~ec~10n )aws. 

Josep~ £. Budzyn, the man 

who sr.:pe:v1sec t~e eagle fea~h · 

e':"' p ossession :nvest!gauon that :andec! a r'.Jra: Mon!Jcelio woman 

!n ho~ wa! e ;, saic! n's up to the 

U.S. A!t0!'":1ey·s o!fice h Urbana 

whethe:- ro charge Cll!1ton. 

Peg 3a!"p,or. of rural Monticel· 

lo faces possiOle charges that 

she vJo !.:3tec f~c!eral lJws by gJv · 

in' on I~dtl:2n-insptrt:d dream 

ca:ch~r ma.:e cf feJ~l';ers f:-om 

var ou~ h1n.!s th.at she found to 

the first l~O::;·. Among the birds, 

she has saiC:, we:re an eat:le fea~hcr and a hlue J.JY leather. 

Bu<!:yr. . .1 Chic.lto-based ser.ior rcsiden! at:cnt of the t: .S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service. said if 

Hi1!.1ry Clinton ac:e:>ted the 

c!ream catcher then she too 

wou ld be ir. "iol3tio~ o! !:>oth the 

Migratory !lird T reaty Act, en· 

acted by Congress tn 1918. and the E.ab:le Protection Act, passed in 1940. 

''Theo:-c~ ca!ty. that's con·ect," he said. "The M1~r~tory Bird 

Treaty act is a strict liability 

ual does not 

have to have 

knowledge that 

they violated 

the Jaw to have 

committed a vi· 

olation. 

Ass ista nt 

U.S. Attorn ey Larry Beaumon t said this 

week that until 

formal charges CUN'TON 

are filed, he can nen her confirm 

nor deny that L~n eagle feathers 

case is pendine. 

J. Steven Bcd<ett of Urbana. 

Bargon's attorney, ~~iC: ~he 

claimS She found t!':c cag!e fea!~· 

er ar a zoo 1n Columbia. S.C.. not 

in Peoria as was rCC('nrly reponed. 

Budzyn said his allency is pri· 

marily interest~d in prose-cuting 

ca,es where feathers are sold 

for commercial gain . He 

stressed that eagle feathers shed 

in zoos ure carefully monitored 

and not available to passers.by, 

"The zoos that do have eagles 

on dtsplay hold a permit to diS· 

play that eagle," he said. "One of 

the conditions of the permit is 

that they send the dropped 

feathers to the 1\'ational Eagle 

Repository. All the birds and 

parts there are used to fill Napnrls." 

Budzyn said the ?-.!J~r;~tQry 

Bird Treaty Act's o:-ig::1 ~l In!entJOn was to· recoemze birds as 

national resou:-c es and to protect 

them. J: was fJrst signed b:: rhe 

United States, Mex:co a:-:C Grea~ 

Bntai n on behalf of CanaG.1 . Japan signed the treaty 1n 1973 and 

the Soviet Umon ca:ne aboard tn 

1976. 

All migratory birds ere covered. by the ac:. Bu dzy:-~ said. 

"It covers basically all ycu:-

birds excep t uplacd same o"<!s 

- heasa~t . grouse. par:rijt:;e and wild tu:key," he sa!d . "Tho 

other three except ions are pigeons, sparrows and. starltng:-.. " 

The Eagle Protecuon Ac: was 

znunded to pro:ect the Mtlon's 

symb<ll. the ~ld eagle, but also 

covers the golden ea2le. !ludzyn 

said. 

Mere possession of eagle 

feathers or migratory bird feath · 

ers can be punishable by up to 

six months in jail and a fin~ of as 

much as $56,000. Possession with 

intent ro sell the feathers can bring up to a year in federal 

prison and a f:ne of up to 

$100,000. he said. 

Buclzyn sa1d 1gnorance o! th~ 

law is not lin ex~use . nor is 

clamnng that the fe&thers were found . 
t.kiCA· ~o Su tl -- I I t1 '-{ J. .)

·----

.. . 1b ""' - ·. --.. ·--: .... - z Willlliliilllifai 

I 

t wna • ''very oice A local ne~ ran a 1401)' ab

thank-you rwh" and, u 8ft.t"KOD.. LoW roe~ Lbe ~D

: Pel' Bu1on jtOl tilly, her "life h.a:.a beell t.u1'11t'G ups

(ru n 1 flillary HoJh.ern eV1!r JO.ince.'' · 

CUnlon for the .. drcuo ll tet!mtl the new~pur._er at.ory C'8

catcher'' KJCt du~ mad~ •Y~ of th• Fis.b & Wildllfe ~e • .,

1po:io.lly lor the firr.l thot Clinl(fn's dtum cat.cbtr iodud

lady. eoglc feathU1 ~j~n of wflj~ 

ADd &JW! "tuok it a.e a Su they at.arted • ahng opezallo

gr<"el honor ... MYI no.r-. &ra:on, wilh lwo underco~u aren

,;oo'& aUorney, J. ~lt ; aa~ potential CUAloiJllltn llyi"' to bu

vea H~kett.. her dream atchett from a Jon.! 

' But the nut' thin.: cn!L<J maU, where they BCU Cor ab

Uargon, of Downstate Nn~ DO (f!WU than •i.J &J.tnU t

Mootic-cllo, got wei a on a u.id 1t the mall and the h

.. -wit ·. from a pooi-e of Ba.rgon and Purcell. who haa tince 

tJ S. Fi:o.h & Wildlife &r\·ice ageu ts onnt'd. S.,rgon g~l!J feetheu foe- bcr ~..-

"'d ~ a &f'luch wo..nllnL hunters, (ne nds.. tV1Ma from ro.d 

Nuw U.Orsoo fuuis herMU ~i111 leaned on US(8 turkey feathera., ph.rtaa.nt. fttt

tu cvp a plea ou federal cl~.ara:n r~Wtcd to most aoy feather t.b.a.t. ~ he.r. 

h~~~~~~~ c;:d C,:~~f~rina ·u:ft huw silty ~! ~!;~ lh~ ucle fe.sthar frUJD. th

fnlual 8-f;Cncies CllJ\ ~;et , and i/ our rovern· Obvious.ly ebe does not ~o aMUnd 

cnent mi.:ht not be runni"f a biucr deficit M capturing eagleL Still, the fea

on N)mnh.m se"-'e tb&II il a on our dollar&. illcge J. So wa~ the blue jay feather 

\\ ~;;:~~ ~h~~~!~h~\i;:r~~y~; .. u.:a~ r:~~~ ":h~~i':t:: c:nU::;

l>nlnll (l ulm.al veUrinury clinic, is into ert.a "Who doeu't walk thou1h t..ht: w

am! unJU; lpeclficaUr. dreAm <".atchtra.. u pick up a Culher .snd brint 't 

A1mman lodu10 artifact made of heRds, Uatgun aak.a.. She'8 read her ~·s B

F.l oneio .e nd fenthel"lt attached t..o o. hoop. : rnam.lRl and "never f"ouod ·a wo

So. when Clinton cautt to the tJ. of I. fur a p K: kinf up feathere ." 

~J~ n•tnmencemccst &rldrthR, A f, Hidi Bcmu But, ~;.IH! eaya, aht .. d idu't .-ant 

rro.l ir h·n.dtr, Elmct ¥ur,~ tll, lll~ ·~ ted th at Lie." Sd £rom the very he~ioning sh

(• m· i.;l Bcrbun's drcnm nll h~f11 h~ IHt't'.~:nl t crlitt.J c-ompktdy'' with the f~tra

1111 u ft to t},~ rt."ei d~n t'8 (~ u\~t~ 
39 

J---0< 3 .J?s The eagle has landed 

When arguments over petty matters start to get o;:; of h3r.d, i:'s usually the 

peacemaker who issu es a plea: All right. 

All right. Lc:'s not make a fed er al case 

out of it. Which brings us to the case of Peg Bar· 

gor. ;:.nd ;l:e eagle feathers. Federal 

authorities a:-e righteously mulling the 

idea of dragging the Monticello area woman into court because she violated 

fe de r al law by possessing some eagle 

feathers. Jn the S;Jirit of common sense, 

!:'s tlme to say to r;.s. Attorney Frances 

Huhn: Please, let's not make a federal 

case out of it. 

Those unfamiliar with the case of Bar· 

gon and her eagle feathers ought to look 

up a July 13 story, "Dream could become 

a nightmare," by The News-Gazene's 

Peter Rooney. Skeptics should be forewarned: The story is no joke. 

What it is is an outrageous example of 

government excess. But, so far at least, 

federal authorities haven't let that obvi· 

ous fact influence their behavior. Mean· 

while, Bargon has hired an attorney to 

represent her. 

This preposterous problem started 

innocently enough with a May 1994 visit 

by first lady Hillary Clinton to speak at a 

University of Illinois commencement. 

Bargon was contacted by then Piatt County Democratic Party Chairman Elmer 

P urcell, who asked her to make a "dream· 

catcher" as a gift for Mrs. Clinton. 

According to Indian lore, the "dreamcatcher" consists of a hoop with feathers, 

stones and beads attached. The feathers are intended to catch the bad dreams, 

while th e stones and beads send the good 

dreams •o the head a! the owner. 

lot makir.g the dreamcatcher, Ba:-gon 

~sed a va!·iety of b:rd feathers, incluc•r.g 

ar. eag:e feathe r she s~id she had pi:keC: 

~P !:-o;, t~e bc~;0r.1 of a caec ct a zoe. \Vi~h !\.!r. P...!~-: ~:1 .lCti~G a$ ~he CO:ld:..tit, 

!\-1:-s. Ct:~t~n s~~s ~q~en: :y c~ctveC he!" 

"dreamcatcher" and sent Bargoi1 a thank 

you note, ail of which was c!uly no;ed in a 

june 13, 1994, story in The News-G:J zettc. 

Amon g the readers of the storv was an 

official wi;h the 'C.S. Fisi< ::l::td Wildiife 

Service. Or. At.:g. 4, 1994, federal agents 

raided Bargon's home. Now Bargon 

remains unde r threat of federal indict· ment. Mr. Purcell, who rece~tly died, so 

far has managed to esca;Je the federal 

dragnet. It IS, o: cou~S 1 under.iabl y true t!;a: 

federal law bans possesswn of eagle 

fe athers without the approval of the U.S. 

government. But this case could have 

been resolved with an exchange of let· 

ters. The idea of search warrants and 

threats of indictment are maddeningly 

ridiculous. What public purpose could be served by 

dragging Bargon into court? Does the 

government seriously contend that this 

woman, who works at the VI's Small Animal Clinic, is a threat to migratory birds? 

And if Bargon is to be indicted for mere 

possession of the eagle feathers, how 

about indicting the first lady, too? 

Of course, indicting Hillary Clinton 

would be ridiculous, but no less :-idicu· 

lous than this bounding of Bargon. 

Government officials, of course, should 

realize that this case is at least as great a 

threat to their credibility as it is to Bargon's liberty. The public can understand 

pointless ovcrki1l. 

Here we have a situation in which government agents are using a sledgeham· 

mer of a law to pursue gnats for no discernible public purpose. Earth to feds, 

come in, please' 

If there's another side ta the s!ory, let's 

hea:- it. !: r:ot, fede:-al ac[hO:i~ies s!;ould 

d:- ~ ~!":ls rr.2!!.er i~~e~ta!e:y. Bcrga:~ is 

now aware c: the fcd~rallaw or. eag}e 

fea~he:-s 3:-:C :ike!:.· v.·':);: 1! !:e 1..:s;ng t!1C:n 

agair.. 
40 

TESTIMONY OF MARSHALL P. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

INTERNATIONAl, AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE, 

REGARDING THE WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992 AND ITS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to be here today to address 

the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service's implementation of the Wild 

Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA) and its effectiveness. The 

Service supports the reauthorization of this Act without any 

amendments. This Act is important to the continued survival of 

many of the world's most beautiful and impressive bird species. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act was signed into law on October 23, 

1992. The WBCA was enacted to promote the conservation of exotic 

birds listed under the Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora by ensuring that all 

imports into the United states are biologically sustainable and 

not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild and 

to assist (where possible) wild bird conservation and management 

programs in the countries of their origin. 

It is importan,t to note what the WBCA does not do: it does not 

regulate the interstate or iritrastate commerce, or breeding of 

exotic birds within the u.s.; nor does it regulate the export ot 

exotic birds from the U.S. The WBCA specifically exempts 10 

families of gamebirds and ratites (such as ostrich), as well as 
41 

birds native to the 50 states and the District of Columbia from 

its provisions. 

At the time that the WBCA was enacted, the United States was the 

world's largest importer of wild exotic birds, importing more 

than 1.4 million wild birds from 1988 to 1990. Approximately 

half of these were parrots and other species protected by CITES. 

Experts estimated that for every wild-caught bird offered for 

sale in a pet store up to five died along the way, starting from 

the point of capture. During one five-year period from 1985 to 

1990, over 330,000 birds arrived at the u.s. port of entry 

already dead or they died within the first 30 days of quarantine, 

according to the u.s. Department of Agriculture. 

The WBCA was passed to enhance CITES implementation by ensuring 

that any imports into the United States of CITES-listed species 

would be allowed only if the necessary biological findings could 

be made. CITES is the international treaty with 128 parties 

which regulates international trade in certain plant and animal 

species. CITES specifically acknowledges the obligation of each 

Party to enforce the treaty and to adopt its own national laws 

regulating trade in CITES-listed wildlife. However, many 

exporting countries lack the resources to obtain sufficient 

biological data regarding their wild bird populations to make the 

"non-detriment finding" required by CITES to ensure that trade is 

2 
42 

biologically sustainable and not a threat to survival of the wild 

populations. 

The WBCA provided for implementation to be phased in over time. 

First, it established an immediate moratorium on the importation 

of ten species of wild birds of particular concern ("significant 

trade species") that were then listed in Appendix II of CITES. 

Second, it d i rected that for one year imports would be allowed 

under a quota, which set a maximum number of any CITES-listed 

bird species to be imported into the u.s for that year. During 

199 3, 84,655 CITES-listed birds were imported into the u.s. in 

1,460 shipments. Third, for 1994 and in future years, imports of 

all CITES-listed birds were prohibited except for species 

included in an approved list or in cases where an import permit 

can be issued by the Service through implementing regulations. 

The Service has moved expeditiously to implement the WBCA·. While 

the WBCA established a broad framework to allow the continued 

import of CITES-listed birds under certain conditions after the 

first year of enactment, all imports were prohibited until 

implementing regulations were promulgated by the Service. Given 

that the WBCA affected the import of many species previously 

unregulated, and a broad spectrum of constituent groups were 

interested in or affected by its implementation, the service made 

public outreach and education a priority in developing its 

regulations. In an effort to reach interested groups, the 

3 
43 

Service has produced fact sheets and posters, given lectures, and 

published articles in the popular press on the WBCA. The Service 

worked cooperatively with many of the organizations presenting 

testimony here today to disseminate information on the WBCA and 

coordinated with the wildlife departments of foreign governments, 

and the avicultural, avian veterinary, zoological, conservation, 

and animal welfare communities. 

The Service's first priority for implementation of the WBCA was 

the issuance of regulations on permits under the WBCA which would 

allow importations for scientific research, zoological 

breeding/display, personal pets, and cooperative breeding 

programs designed to promote the conservation of the species and 

maintain the species in the wild. These were effective on 

November 16, 1993, only three weeks after the date that the WBCA 

prohibited all imports of CITES-listed exotic birds. 

As of August 8, 1995, the Service has issued over 550 permits to 

import CITES-listed exotic birds for scientific research, 

zoological breeding/display and as personal pets. The 

applications to import prohibited species have involved a wide 

variety of species listed in Appendices I, II, and III of CITES. 

Ninety two percent of these applications have involved the import 

of personal pets. Import applications for personal pets are, on 

average, processed within two weeks of the Office of Management 

Authority receiving a completed application. 

4 
44 

Permits also have been issued to 14 zoological institutions to 

import specimens for breeding and display for species ranging 

from Birds of Paradise from Papua-New Guinea to hummingbirds from 

Suriname. Permits are also available for imports associated with 

cooperative breeding programs. Programs have been approved for 

nine species ranging from harpy eagles with oversight by the 

Peregrine Fund to crimson-bellied conures with oversight by the 

American Federation of Aviculture. In reviewing cooperative 

breeding program applications, the Service seeks the expertise 

and opinion of the CITES Management Authorities and biologists in 

the range stat.es regarding the status of the bird species to be 

imported and t.he conservation efforts for the species in the 

wild. For example, comments from the Government of Brazil have 

provided critical information needed to evaluate proposed 

cooperative breeding programs for Brazilian endemic parrots. 

The second priority for implementation was to establish an 

approved list of captive-bred species that came from captive 

breeding facilities in foreign countries. The Service considered 

these regulations a priority in order to facilitate shipments to 

U.S. by importers of th~se captive-bred species. Species on this 

approved list can be imported into the U.S. without a WBCA 

permit. The final list of approved species includes 45 captivebred exotic bird species and the color mutations for 3 captivebred species. As a ·result of comments received during the public 

5 
45 

review process, the service expanded its proposed list and added 

a number of additional finch and parrot species to the final 

list. For example, the color mutations of several parrotlet 

species, masked lovebirds, western rosellas and Jendaya conures 

were added to the list in response to comments received. 

The 45 captive-bred species on this approved list can be imported 

into the u.s. in commercial quantities, thus encouraging their 

use by the pet industry to supply birds for the retail trade 

rather than wild-caught birds. For example, the service has 

observed an increase in the import of captive-bred rosella 

parakeet species from European breeders and such imports have not 

been detrimental to the survival of native rosella species in 

Australia. 

The third priority for implementation was to establish the 

criteria for approving sustainable use management plans in range 

countries and, thereby, allowing the importation of wild-caught 

birds from those countries covered by a plan approved by the 

Service. Implementation of this proposed regulation would 

establish an approved list of wild-caught birds that can be 

imported without WBCA permits. A final decision on the proposed 

criteria is expected. 

While we are working to complete the regulatory process, the 

Service has initiated contact with several exporting countries 

6 
46 

that have expressed interest. We have offered technical 

expertise and support to those countries requesting assistance in 

monitoring psittacine populations and developing sustainable use 

management plans. In one instance, Service personnel visited 

Argentina (a major exporter of wild birds prior to the WBCA) to 

observe and comment on ongoing studies into the ecology and 

conservation of the Blue-fronted Amazon parrot and a potential 

plan for its sustainable harvest. The government of Indonesia 

has initiated studies into the sustainable management of its bird 

populations i n anticipation of final regulations. 

The fourth priority for implementation was to establish criteria 

so that the Service can evaluate and approve foreign breeding 

facilities, as an alternative source for birds not available from 

sustainably-managed wild populations. These regulations have 

been proposed and over 4000 public comments were received, 

including substantive input from many avicultural, raptor 

breeder, conservation, animal welfare, and scientific 

organizations and the pet industry. The Service is currently 

reviewing these comments to ensure that any final regulations are 

responsive to those comments. Once implemented such regulations 

would allow for the import of birds from an approved breeding 

facility without a WBCA permit. We expect a final decision to be 

made on these proposed regulations by the end of the year. 

7 
47 

The Service recognizes that new laws, and the regulations derived 

from them, are frequently a source of confusion and 

misunderstanding for the affected public. This has certainly 

been true of the WBCA. A great deal of confusion resulted from 

the WBCA, requiring the Service to look at voluntary marking 

programs and report to the Congress. Many aviculturists 

interpreted this to mean that regulations would be implemented to 

require marking of all domestic birds. The Report to Congress on 

voluntary marking will be completed by the end of the year. 

~owever, The service maintains that there is no need now, nor 

will there be in the future, to impose any labeling program on 

any breeder or business. There is no interest on the part of the 

industry in a cooperative, voluntary program of labeling exotic 

birds beyond those means that already exist, and there is no 

perceived need to promulgate regulations to implement such 

programs. 

Unfortunately, there have also been a number of misconceptions 

about the WBCA which have confused the public about its impact on 

domestic breeders of exotic birds. Some thought that the WBCA 

made it ill~g~l to even possess a wild-caught bird as a pet. 

Others feared that one could only legally breed birds on the 

approved captive-bred list. There was significant concern that 

the WBCA would result in searching aviaries and seizing birds 

without cause. The Service has worked diligently to stress to 

the public that the WBCA only regulates the import of exotic 

8 
48 

birds, both captive-bred and wild-caught . The WBCA has no impact 

on birds bred within the u.s. and their export. 

Three years after the WBCA's enactment, it is working well to 

achieve its intended purpose conserving birds in the wild . 

Imports of CITES-listed bird species to the U.S. hav e declined 

significantly. During 1994, 12,565 CITES-listed birds and 89,431 

non-CITES-listed birds were imported into the U.S. while thus far 

in 1995, 3,794 CITES-listed birds and 30,850 non-CITES-listed 

birds have been imported into the U.S. The exemption process for 

imports of birds for zoological breeding/ display, for personal 

pets, scientifi c research, and cooperative breeding programs is 

operational and working. When regulations for the approval of 

foreign breeding facilities and sustainable use management 

programs are adopted , the number o f birds, both wild-caught and 

captive-bred, imported to the U.S. will increase. But that 

increase will be because importations have been found not to be 

detrimental to the species survival and provid i ng for the 

species' conservation in the wi1 d. 

Since enactment of the W~CA, domestic breeding efforts for exotic 

bird species in the U. S. have increased and a wide variety of 

domestically-bred species is available. We acknowledge the 

substantial contribution U.S . aviculturists can make towards 

supplying the demand for pet birds to the American consumer. We 

encourage them to participate in cooperative breeding programs 

9 
49 

for species that may not be well-represented in the U.S. and 

where importation assists genetic diversity for these species. 

Finally, the Service believes that the provisions of the WBCA 

which regulate import of captive-bred birds fill an important 

gap. While CITES approves and certifies captive-breeding 

facilities for CITES-listed Appendix I bird species, there is no 

equivalent approval process for CITES-listed Appendix II or III 

species. Problems remain in adequate regulatory and enforcement 

mechanisms in many countries of origin for species which are in 

trade. Therefore, no assurances exist that wild-caught birds are 

not being misrepresented and illegally imported as captive-bred 

birds. The WBCA allows captive-bred birds to be imported in a 

variety of ways: from an approved list of captive-bred species, 

or from an approved foreign breeding facility, or as a permitted 

e xemption. Therefore, adequate means exist to provide for 

captive breeding under the WBCA. 

In closing, the Service strongly supports the re-authorization of 

the WBCA. The U.S. has shown world leadership in conserving 

exotic bir~papulations and the re-authorization of the WBCA will 

r econfirm our commitment to continue this leadership. we look 

forward to working with this Committee during the reauthorization process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

10 
Christine Todd Whitm an 

Governor 

50 

~tate of N efn Jjerset! 

Departm e nt of Environment al Prot ection Rob ert C. Shinn , Jr 

Comm i.ssJoner 

Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on the Reauthorization of 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act 

by 

Lawrence Herrighty, Supervising Wildlife Biologist 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife 

September 28, 1995 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today at 

this reauthorization hearing for the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

of 1992 (WBCA). I am Larry Herrighty, supervising wildlife 

biologist for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's 

Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife. I am the supervisor of t he 

division's peYmit section, and in that capacity, I oversee the 

administration of New Jersey's own Wild Bird Act and regulations. 

I am here to support the reauthorization because I believe the 

act is necessary to conserve wild populations of exotic bird 

species which have a history of being exploited for commercial 

purposes . The people of New Jersey feel likewise. In 19 91, the 

New Jersey legislature overwhelmingly passed a wild bird ac::. which prohibited the possession of wild- caught birds not already 

in legal possession. Exceptions are allowed for zoological, 

scientific and conservat i on breeding programs . Only three 

species of exotic birds common to the pet trade were exempted in 

the act. Two more were exempted by regulation. As mandated, 

the regulations also establish methodologies to distinguish 

between wild-caught and captive bred birds. The Act also allows 

the department to promulgate a list of exempted bird species. 

New Jersey's act is, therefore, similar, but in some respects 

more restrictive than the federal act being discussed today . believe New Jersey's experience is pertinent to todays discussion 

since we have had to deal with the same concerns, issues, 

questions and misconceptions which have resulted in this 

oversight hearing today. 

New Jersey is at1 Equal Opportumty Employer 

Recycled Paper 
51 

I have had the opportunity to read some of the newsletters chat 

the America Federation of Aviculturists has sent to its members 

concerning this act, as we ll as the public comment in the Federal 

Register . In this material, I find no objection to the primary 

purpose of the act, which is to curtail the commercial trade in 

wild- caught birds for those species in jeopardy. Therefore, I 

think we can all agree that this conserva tion objective is 

biologically and politically correct. 

What I do read, however, are three major areas of concern 

regarding regulations needed to enforce the act. The first issue 

involves the documentation to be provided by overseas breeders in 

order to prevent laundering of wild-caught birds and to create a l i s t of qualifying overseas breeding facilities (sect i on 10 7) . 

Second is the issue of the possibility of 

keeping allowed in section 115 of the act; 

conce rn that the act will curtail captive 

species in the United States. 

marking and 

and third, 

breeding of 

record 

is t he 

exoti c 

I wi l l address each of these issues, because I have heard them 

all before in NJ. 

The first issue is the need to scrutinize documents for imported 

captive bred birds in order to regulate the trade in wild-caught 

birds. 

Some testimony heard today may declare that this is beyond the 

scope and intent of the WBCA . I argue that it is an essential 

a nd necessary wildlife management tool, without which, the 

objective of the WBCA can not be accomplished. 

Requiring a paper or document trail to distinguish between legal 

and illegally obtained wildlife is a long standing practice 

which is basic to wildlife management throughout North America. 

For example, hunters are required to tag their harvested big 

game; and commercial fishermen are required to log their 

landings. Throughout the processing of privately or commercially 

harvested wildlife, documents proving legal possession must 

accompany the product. 

The New Jersey Wild Bird Act requires purchasers to produce a r eceipt that indicates that the bird was domestically bred. 

Birds held prior to the act may be legitimized by dated 

photographs, veterinarian records or sworn statements. Proper 

documents protect the law abiding public and make it easier for 

law enforcement personnel to investigate questionable activities. 

In New Jersey, hobbyists owning exotic birds must obtain a 

possession permit . Of the 4,000 bird applications received so far 

this year' only 10 applicants have yet to provide us with the 

required documentation. Initially there was some confusion in 

New Jersey concerning what was legitimate documentation. Most 

questions involved pre-act birds. However, now our pet stores 

and private breeders have been educated and our constituents are 
52 

having very little problem obtaining proper documents. During 

all my conversations with dealers and their customers, The 

concept of requiring documentation to prove legitimacy was easily 

understood and accepted. 

Checking questionable documentation in New Jersey is easier 

because we have access to the records of in-state dealers. We 

can also rely on the assistance of fish and game agencies '..n 

other states should we wish to check the authenticity of a questionable source. 

Checking the documentation from other countries is obviously 

going to be more difficult. The WBCA allows the importation of 

captive bred birds. The regulations necessary to scrutinize 

this documentation has yet to be promulgated but they are already 

under fire. 

I believe it is legitimate to require that a foreign captive 

breeder document that his facility can actually breed the species 

and numbers of birds they intend to export. I also believe we should wait for the regulations concerning qualifying facilities 

as defined in section 106 to be published before we complain tha.t 

they will be overly burdensome . 

The second issue involves the possibility that section 115 of the 

WBCA will be implemented. Section 115 allows the Secretary to 

promulgate regulations requiring marking (banding or tagging) and 

record keepin9. The USFWS has already stated in public meetings 

that they do not intend to exercise this option since foreign 

banding is no': a sure way to distinguish wild-caught from captive 

reared birds. I agree. Closed bands can be slipped on a young 

bird taken from a tree by some black marketer in order to launder 

it as captive bred. 

I should point out, however, that New Jersey requires that all 

birds bred in-state be fitted with a closed band. Unhanded preact birds must be banded with butt-end bands if resold. We 

specify bands from a particular manufacturer but also recognize 

bands being utilized already by members of the American 

Federation of Aviculture, the National Finch and Soft Bill 

Society and the Society of Parrot Breeders and Exhibitors. We are also willing to allow bands from any other organization which 

is wi lling to help us trace a bird if it becomes necessary . We 

also allow micro-chip implants as an option for those wishing not 

to band their birds. 

Although New Jersey law · is stricter in this regard, there are two points I would like to make. The first is that 

banding/tagging always helps the legitimate constituent and is an 

aid, although not fool proof, in apprehending the illegal 

purveyor of birds. Secondly, several national organizations 

have already recognized the value of banding as a method of 

individual! y tracking birds for breeding purposes. For these 

organizations, the banding is not overly burdensome but rather an 

aid to good animal husbandry. 
53 

As in New Jersey, allowances are made in the WBCA for importation 

of wild-caught birds for conservation purposes such as establishing captive breeding techniques for species not yet bred 

in captivity. I assure you that when wild birds are imported for 

these purposes, each bird will be banded or micro-chipped, since 

marking is the best way to track individual birds and their success in a breeding program . 

Thirdly, and closely tied in to the above two concerns is that 

captive breeding of birds in the United States is and will 

continue to be curtailed by the WBCA and resulting regulations. 

In New Jersey, we have found nothing further from the truth. One 

can only pick up a newspaper or scan the yellow pages to find 

breeders advertising that their birds are domestically bred and 

hand fed. Dealers are reacting to an educated consumer market 

that bought into the wild bird act from the very beginning . They are advertising what the consumers want, a friendlier and 

healthier pet. Wild-caught birds have always been cheaper but 

have always been wrought with health and behavioral problems . 

I have talked to hundreds of bird hobbyists and have yet to hear 

a consumer complain about the extra price he or she has to pay 

for a domestically bred bird . They have seen the television 

programs or read magazine articles on the exotic bird trade and 

they understand the conservation and the animal cruelty issues . 

They are quite satisfied to pay more , in order to get a bird 

which will be healthy and tame . Our wild bird act has helped 

the in-state breeder who must charge more for a bird that has 

been hand-fed and cared for with great attention. We have not 

hurt New Jersey aviculturists by our law, we have allowed them to 

flourish. 

I suggest that the same will be true for bird breeders across the 

United States. 

In conclusion, I believe the WBCA and its regulations have been 

fair and on target in meeting their stated objective. Dealing 

with an international issue such as conservation of exotic birds 

can not be effectively dealt with at a state level. As with 

other import I export issues involving wildlife, the regulation 

of exotic birds is best handled at the federal level by the 

U.s. F. W. S . which has a long history of cooperation with state 

wildlife agencies. 

New Jersey looks forward to the reauthorization of the WBCA and 

the full adoption of the required regulations. Perhaps then New 

Jersey regulations can be amended so that they mirror the federal 

standard, thereby conserving the exotic bird resource while 

providing our citizens with a consistent and unobtrusive 

regulatory framework from which to conduct their business or hobby. Thank you. 
Summary of Testimony before the House Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on the Reauthorization of 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act 

by 

Lawrence Herrighty, Supervising Wildlife Biologist 

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife 

(609) 984-0839 

September 28, 1995 

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection supports the 

reauthorization of the Wild Bird Conservation Act which regulates the 

importation of wild-caught exotic birds whose populations are being overly 

exploited for commercial trade. 

New Jersey passed a Wild Bird Act in 1991 which prohibits the possession of 

wild-caught birds except for zoological, scientific, and conservation breeding 

programs. Subsequent regulations require a marking system to distinguish wild 

caught vs. captive birds, allows importation of wild-caught birds to increase 

the genetic diversity of breeding stock when there is a demonstrated need; and 

the creation of an exempt species list. 

We, therefore, have familiarity with the concerns raised regarding the 

federal WBCA. The first concern is that the regulations go beyond the 

objective of the act by regulating the importation and by scrutinizing 

documentation for captive bred birds (Section 106). We disagree. Requiring 

documentation to distinguish between illegal and legal origin wildlife is a 

standard and proven wildlife management tool. Comments that these regulations 

will be overly burdensome and will curtail captive breeding in the United 

States are premature since these regulations have yet to be promulgated. 

The second area of concern is section 115 of the Act which allows the 

Secretary to promulgate regulations to require marking and records to aid in 

enforcement. We agree with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that 

banding/marking is not the preferred method to distinguish imported wild 

caught birds from legitimate captive breed birds since closed bands can be 

placed on newly hatched wild caught birds. We further note, however, that 

banding has not been a problem in New Jersey and that several national 

avicultural organizations track individual birds through banding. 

Finally, there is a concern that regulations pursuant to the act which 

restrict importations of captive bred birds will be detrimental to domestic 

breeding programs. In New Jersey, we have found the opposite to be true. 

Our aviculturists recognize the conservation and cruelty issues involved wit.h 

the wild bird trade and support the additional marking and document 

requirements. Additionally, without competition from cheaper wild caught 

birds, domestic breeding has become more profitable. 

we feel that the WBCA should be reauthorized because the exotic bird trade is 

best regulated at the federal level. 
55 

WWF 

~~ 

STATEMENT OF 

JAMES P. LEAPE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

WORLD Wll..DLIFE FUND 

On the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

of the 

Committee on Resources 

September 28, 1995 

World Wildl;fe Fund 

1250 Twenty-Founh St., NW Washmgton, DC 20037- 11 75 USA 

Tet (202) 193·4800 Telex, 64505 PANDA FAX (202} 293-9211 

Incorporating The Constrvation Foundation. Affiliated with World Wide Fund for Nature . 

rc:cycl c:d p;~pcr 
56 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am James P. Leape, Senior Vice 

President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

today to comment on the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) as it has been implemented to 

date, and to present our views on why Congress should reauthorize a strong Act. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act was an important piece of wildlife conservation 

legislation when it was enacted three years ago and it remains a sound law today. Its goals were 

rwo-fold -- frrst, to curtail the trade that had become harmful to wild populations of parrots and 

other exotic birds, and second, to allow a sustainable level of trade in avian species consistent 

with their long-term conservation in the wild. 

The frrst goal has been met. The Act has helped reduce our harmfully high levels of 

imports, and we are no longer contributing to the demise of many spectacular species. That is a 

major success by any measure. The jury is still out however on the Act's second goal -- to allow 

for the sustainable trade in these species while ensuring that U.S. imports are not detrimental to 

wild populations. Regulations implementing rwo key mechanisms that would allow for that trade 

have not yet been issued, so it is not yet possible to assess how well the Act will achieve the 

second goal. 

It is important to highlight, however, that the Act has not shut off all bird imports 

completely: zoos have been able to impon birds for public display; scientists have been able to 

impon birds for research; and citizens have been able to bring home the pet birds they acquired 

while living abroad. And based on anecdotal information, it appears that pet shops have an 

ample supply of captive bred birds to sell, and in spite of the reduced imports, prices have not 

risen notably. 

In the remainder of my testimony I will explain why WWF believes it is important that 

the Act be fully implemented as soon as possible and I will make specific recommendations on 

bow that can and should be done administratively. 

Background 

More than three years ago, I testified before Congress about the need for legislation to 

help halt the alarming decline of wild bird populations in many parts of the world, due to 

excessive international trade demands. While evidence indicated that habitat loss was the single 

most significant threat to most wild birds, international trade from the tropics and subtropics for 

the pet market was clearly ·contributing to the decline of some species. 

1 
57 

In 1988, WWF convened the Cooperative Working Group on Bird Trade', which I 

chaired, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of imports of live exotic birds into the United 

States. The recommendations of the Working Group, which met over a period of two years, laid 

the groundwork for the Wild Bird Conservation Act. These recommendations resulted from frank 

discussion, hard negotiation, and compromise that a diverse range of interested organizations 

accepted as the most practical and feasible way to reduce mortality and to control trade in wildcaught birds. Representatives from the conservation community, animal welfare groups, 

American zoos, avicultural interests, and the pet industry recognized that in the long-term we 

share a common interest - maintenance of healthy populations of birds in the wild around the 

world. 

This willingness - on the part of the avifauna industry and wildlife conservationists -- to 

work together on a common interest is a tremendously constructive approach. We need to ensure 

that the end result of our collaboration -- the Wild Bird Conservation Act -- is being implemented 

in a manner that addresses our individual concerns as well as our shared interests if it is to serve 

as a model for cooperation on wildlife conservation issues in the future. I commend you for 

holding this hearing to air concerns about the Act and to try to find appropriate ways to address 

them. · 

Decreasing wild bird populations, particularly in tropical regions of the world, have been 

of increasing concern to international conservationists for over a decade: the Convention on the 

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) recognized in 1981 

that the heavy trade in parrots had the potential to threaten wild populations, and listed all 

parrots, including macaws, parakeets and lories (with the exception of three species), on 

Appendix II, which requires range states to ensure that exports of the species are not harmful to 

wild populations. A subsequent CITES review drew attention to the large numbers of parrots in 

international trade and resulted in recommendations that additional trade controls be implemented 

in a number of countries. At each Conference of the Parties to CITES in the last 15 years, a few 

more parrot species have been moved from Appendix II to Appendix I as trade has taken its toll; 

the scarlet macaw in 1985, the hyacinth macaw in 1987 and the Goffms cockatoo in 1992, to 

mention only a few examples. The European Community, the world's largest regional market, 

has implemented regulations that go beyond CITES requirements and has prohibited imports or 

established restrictive quotas on several species of parrots. Finally, several airlines no longer 

transport wild birds. 

As a result of this attention -- both in the U.S. and internationally - range states have 

begun to take steps to control the exports of their wild birds. Of the five major bird exporting 

Members of the Cooperative Working Group on Bird Trade : American Association 

o f Zoological Parks and Aquariums, American Federation of Aviculture , American 

Pheasant and Waterfowl Society, Animal Protection Institute of America, Animal 

Welfare Institute, Association of Avian Veterinarians, Humane SocietY. of the 

United States, International Council for Bird Preservation, National Audubon 

Society, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, Society for Animal Protective 

Legislaeion, TRAFFIC USA, and World Wildlife Fund 

2 
58 

countries, four -- Argentina, Guyana, Indonesia and Tanzania -- have significantly reduced bird 

exports by increasingly restrictive quotas. For example, Indonesia reduced its quota for the 

violet necked lory from over 4,000 birds in 1990 to under 1,000 in 1995, and Guyana reduced 

exports of the orange winged amazon from 15,000 in 1989 to 9,000 this year. 

Some countries have also taken steps to strengthen their control of the bird trade. 

Tanzania has developed a management plan for trade in live birds requiring that quotas be 

established at the species level; that the total number of each species available for export be 

divided among licensed exporters; that quotas take into account post-capture mortality, and that 

the number of companies dealing with live birds be limited to around 30. Similarly, Indonesia 

has sought to improve its monitoring capability to more effectively track trade in wild birds. The 

country's wildlife department points to a number of steps it has a taken in the past few years, 

including more rigorous procedures for establishing harvest quotas, an annual review comparing 

export quotas with capture quotas, the establishment of a shipping pennit requirement, and the 

establishment of additional requirements for exporter registration. Although both countries 

continue to face significan!'difficulties in effectively controlling the bird trade , positive steps have 

clearly been taken. 

WWF has supported efforts to generate information necessary for detennining the status 

of populations and sustainable levels of trade. Specifically, we have funded parrot population 

assessments in Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and Argentina. Additional surveys have been 

funded through other sources in Indonesia and Argentina. Sufficient biological infortnation is not 

available, however, for most species, and effective trade controls are not yet in place to warrant 

reopening the trade. In the majority of range states, field studies have not been undertaken to 

assess the status of national bird populations. Additionally, almost nothing is known in most 

countries about the number of birds harvested for domestic use, which may significantly impact 

wild bird populations. As a result, most bird producing countries still do not have adequate 

infonnation on their wild bird populations to determine if a sustainable harvest for export is 

possible. That being the case, it is clear that the Wild Bird Conservation Act is still very much 

needed. 

Is the WBCA working? 

Because the WBCA has not yet been fully implemented, it is difficult at this point to 

judge what its ultirnate impact and success will be. However, some initial assessments can be 

made. Total bird imports -- including wild-caught and captive-bred birds -- fell from a high of a 

reported 848,000 in 1984 to 478,000 in 1992 to 102,000 in 1994. The precipitous decline in 

U.S. imports of wild'-Caught birds clearly demonstrates that we are not contributing to the 

depletion of wild populations to the extent we had in the past. The WBCA anticipated, however, 

that by the time the ban on wild-caught imports of CITES-listed birds took effect, mechanisms 

would be in place to allow the importation of birds at levels and from sources that do not 

contribute to the decline of wild populations. Those regulations have not yet been published. 

Key to achieving the A~t' s goal of wild bird conservation is to ensure that all trade in 

wild birds involving the U.S. is biologically sustainable. The Act seeks to achieve that goal by 

allowing the importation of CITES-listed birds only if the country from which they originate has 

3 
59 

implemented an adequate management plan for their conservation, or if they are bred in captivity. 

An exemption to this rule is provided for four categories of non-eornmercial imports: zoological 

display, scientific researcb, cooperative breeding programs, and personal pets. Birds that are not 

listed under CITES can be imported unless the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) finds that they 

are threatened by trade. 

Exemptions under the WBCA 

As noted above, the WBCA provides four exemptions for bird imports: for scientific 

research, zoological breeding or display, and cooperative breeding programs; and pet owners 

may bring their pet birds into the country after living abroad. WWF believes the regulations and 

permit application requirements for importing birds pursuant to these exemptions are reasonable 

and not overly burdensome. Experienced and qualified breeders should not have difficulty 

providing the information that is required. It was anticipated that this exemption would be used 

for the importation of wild caught birds, in which case the information is warranted and 

appropriate. However, this exemption is also being used for the time being for the importation 

of birds bred in captivity, since the regulations for the approval of foreign captive breeding 

facilities have not yet been issued. We understand the frustration on the part of those who have 

found that this was the only route available for the importation of a bird from a captive breeding 

facility. The solution is not to change the requirements for imports under the exemption, but 

rather to expedite the regulations for the approval of foreign captive breeding facilities. 

Regulations for Management Plans and Breeding Facilities 

The WBCA broadly defines what constitotes an adequate management plan and qualifying 

foreign breeding facility, and delegates authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue 

regulations containing specific criteria, and to process applications submitted pursuant to those 

criteria. Unfortonately, Congress has not provided sufficient funds for the FWS to implement the 

WBCA, and the issuance of final regulations has been delayed for nearly two years. As a result, 

many birds bred in captivity in foreign countries cannot be imported, and there is not yet a 

procedure for importing birds from countries with sound management programs. 

The fact that fmal regulations are not yet in place is especially troubling with respect to 

the import of birds from qualified captive breeding facilities in foreign countries. Because these 

regulations have not been issued, the WBCA has unintentionally closed a viable source of captive 

bred birds. Titat was clearly not intended: the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Report 

on the WBCA acknowledged that "successful breeding of species of birds popular in the pet trade 

may help reduce the pressures on wild populations by increasing the numbers of birds that are 

available from captive-bred sources in both the United States and elsewbere. • We urge the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to expedite the issuance of those regulations and, if it appears that additional 

delay is unavoidable, to consider providing an interim means of importing. birds listed on 

Appendix II and III to CITES when they are verifiably bred in captivity. 

The proposed rules on foreign captive breeding facilities have generated heated 

discussion. While it is important to use care and scrutiny in overseeing foreign breeding facilities 

to ensure that they are not used to launder wild-eaught birds, WWF believes that the regulations -

4 
60 

- as originally proposed -- would have imposed some requirements that seemed to be unnecessary 

to achieve the goals of the Act. The goal of these regulations should be to ensure that captive 

breeding facilities are capable of breeding birds of the variety and in the quantity that they seek 

to export and that the facilities are not used as a means of laundering wild-caught birds. The 

FWS has received extensive comments of the proposed regulations and we hope that the final 

rules will be responsive to those comments and not raise unnecessary barriers to legitimate 

captive breeding. 

Regulations have also been proposed for the approval of management plans to provide for 

the sustainable harvest of wild birds in range states. WWF believes that the sustainable use of 

wildlife can in some instances play a constructive role in conservation, by providing incentives to 

protect both wildlife and the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Sound management plans, 

including law enforcement schemes, are crucial to ensure that trade in exotic birds does not harm 

wild populations. Indeed, WWF has devoted significant resources to efforts to help range states 

develop good, scientifically based wildlife management plans. We hope the FWS will issue final 

regulations that assure that any wild-caught birds imported to the U.S. in the future are harvested 

pursuant to sound management plans with clear conservation benefits, but that the regulations not 

impose requirements unnecessary to achieving that goal. 

Marking of Birds 

The WBCA authorizes the FWS to promulgate regulations requiring marking or recordkeeping of birds. Those provisions were included to address the serious issue of smuggling. It 

is excessively difficult to distinguish between legally and illegally obtained birds unless the legal 

birds are marked in some way. The marking issue consumed many hours of discussion during 

meetings of the Cooperative Working Group on the Bird Trade. It was a contentious issue for 

the Working Group five years ago, and remains so today. 

It is adminedly difficult to devise a foolproof marking system. It does not appear that the 

FWS will use this authority in the foreseeable future, as establishing a federal marking system is, 

for technical and logistical reasons, not realistic in the short term. WWF believes that because a 

feasible marking system is not yet developed, the FWS should not promulgate regulations on 

marking at this time. Instead, FWS should concentrate its anention and limited resources on 

enforcing the Act's provisions regarding the import of wild birds in a way that does not impede 

legitimate captive breeding programs. 

Aooendix III 

Under CITES, a country may act unilaterally to add a species to Appendix III. The effect 

of such a listing is that exports of that species from that country, and only from that country, are 

treated as an Appendix II species, and as such must be accompanied by an export permit. Other 

countries exporting the same species simply issue a certificate of origin of the specimen. We 

believe that it was the intent of Congress that Appendix III species would be treated as CITES 

species for purposes of this Act only when they were exported from the countries that listed them 

on Appendix III. The Fish and Wildlife Service had the same understanding and its regulations 

reflected that interpretation. However the FWS was sued over the regulations and the court 

5 
61 

found that the WBCA applies to Appendix ill birds, regardless of their origin. If and when 

Congress reauthorizes this Act, we recommend the issue be clarified to reflect what we believe 

was Congress's original intent. 

Aid to Range States 

One of the stated purposes of the act is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by 

"assisting wild bird conservation and management programs in the countries of origin of wild 

birds." In this respect the Act has fallen far short of its intent. When the European Community 

imposes a ban on bird imports from a range state, or sets restrictive quotas, it also supports 

efforts to collect the information necessary to determine safe levels of harvest and reopen the 

trade. The United States should do likewise. Coincidentally, a source of funding has recently 

become available to the Fish and Wildlife Service that can and should be used for this purpose. 

The Department of the Interior and the Agency for International Development have irtitiated a 

joint program to improve the capacities of developing countries to conserve biological diversity 

and promote sustainable development. A portion of the funds are to be used to improve the 

capabilities of developing countries to implement CITES. We urge the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to use funds under this program to help range states design wild bird management programs that 

will meet the requirements of the WBCA and to conduct field research necessary to support those 

management programs. 

Summary and Conclusions 

The United States plays a huge role in international trade in wildlife; at more than $1 

billion in annual imports, this country remains the world's largest wildlife market. Our level of 

vigilance and active assistance helps determine the fate of many commercially-valuable species, 

and we believe that the U.S. therefore has a special responsibility to maintain strong policies and 

laws to ensure that commerce in wildlife -- and in this case, birds -- does not put species at risk. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act remains a viable framework through which the U.S. can 

control imports of birds. Although there have been a few glitches in its implementation, they can 

be fixed admirtistratively, and do not -- with the one exception noted below -- require a change in 

the law. We note that the Act does not appear to have resulted in a shortage of birds for sale as 

pets, nor have prices risen notably. If the Act is reauthorized, it should not be tinkered with, but 

rather it should be given a chance to work as it was intended. Our specific recommendations are 

as follows: 

o Final regulations implementing the Act should be issued promptly. 

o The Fish and Wildlife Service should be provided sufficient funds for the Act's 

implementation. 

o Assistance should be provided to range states to help them manage their wild bird populations 

sustainably. 

o The Fish and Wildlife Service should focl,IS its limited resources on regulations ensuring that 

6 
62 

the bird trade does not have a negative impact on wild populations, rather than issuing bird 

marking regulations. 

o If the Act is reauthorized, the Appendix ill issue should be clarified. 

7 
Summary of testimony 

on the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act 

James P. Leape 

World Wildlife Fund 

1250 Twenty-Fourth St., NW 

Washington DC 20037-1175 

(202) 293-4800 

September 28, 1995 

The United States plays a huge role in international trade 

in wildlife; at more than $1 billion in annual imports, this 

country remains the world's largest wildlife market. Our level 

of vigilance and active assistance helps determine the fate of 

many commercially-valuable species, and we believe that the U.S. 

therefore has a special responsibility to maintain strong 

policies and laws to ensure that commerce in wildlife -- and in 

this case, birds -- does not put species at risk. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act remains a viable framework 

through which the U. S. can control imports of birds. Although 

there have been a few glitches in its implementation, they can be 

fixed administratively, and do not -- with the one exception 

noted below -- require a change in the law. If the Act is 

reauthorized, it should not be tinkered with, but rather it 

should be given a chance to work as it was .intended. Our 

specific recommendations are as follows: 

o Final regulations implementing the Act should be issued 

promptly . 

o The Fish and Wildlife Service should be provided sufficient 

funds for the Act's implementation. 

o Assistance should be provided to range states to help them 

conserve their wild bird populations. 

o The Fish and Wildlife Service should focus its limited 

resources on regulations ensuring that the bird trade does not 

have a negative impact on wild populations, rather than issuing 

bird marking regulations. 

o If the Act is reauthorized, the Appendix III issue should be 

clarified. 
ADger A. Khdler, Eaq. 

\o'b~¢oin.e/ .-.·· 

• f> · · :··· 

STAFF\lCE PRESIDEl\n 

Ric:NrdM. Ck.lgston, Pri.O. 

--,.... .. 

Michael W. Fox, D.Sc., Ph.D., 

B. Vet Med., MACVS .· _ :· 

~MJdF111m~~ 

WayMPII»i& . . . 

~AIWardMirdll 

Debonah J. Salem 

-MartinL~ Ptl D 

l...abof'li/Of)'Anima/S 

DavidK. Wll~ 

IIWBStipa/'ions 

~umaugn Sluat~ MadOen. Esq. 

Seru<w Co"""' 

lliRF.C:I'ORS 

Donald w. Cashen Mlta W. Coupe, Esq 

Judi Fli&O"nan Harold H. Gardiner 

Alice A. Garey Jane Goodall. Ph.D. 

.ulan Hoplui>S 

Jennfler l earung.M.O 

Amy Freeman Lee. Lin.D 

Eugene W. Lorenz JackW. Lydman 

Virg•n•aS.Lynch 

Wdliam F. Mancus.o 

Thomas L Meinharot 

O.J. Aarnsey, ESQ. 

James D. Ross 

Marrlyn G. Seyler 

Paula A Smrlh 

Jonr'" Tall 

Ca Thnft 

ROl.. ,·'. Welborn.Esq 

David 0 Wiebers. M.D. 

Marilyn E. Wdhelm 

t<W•illamWisem.ln 

64 

TESTIMONY ON TilE UNITED STATES 

WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992 

Before the House Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

of the Committee on Resources 

September 28, 1995 

Presented by Teresa M. Telecky, Ph.D. 

Director, Wildlife Trade Program 

The Humane Society of the United States 

On Behalf of : 

American Humane Association 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Earth Island Institute 

Environmental Investigation Agency 

Society for Animal Protective Legislation 

Washington Humane Society 

flu.: llum:mc :"'•>ci..: ly ul· 1h~ l 'nilt.'d Sr;u.._-.. 

2UHt I. :-..r ...... ..-1. _'\ \\: \\'a.,hiw.:con. ll( : 11lll.1/ 

t.!U::!) -I:'!- I IOU 1-'.\X. (.!U!) 17S-hl-'~ 
65 

Executive Summary 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) was enacted by unanimous Congressional consent 

on October 23, 1992 for the purpose of conserving wild, exotic birds in their natural habitats. 

It receives the widespread support of environmental, conservation and animal protection 

organizations, zoos, bird breeders and pet stores. Federal legislation was recognized as being 

the only solution to the inherent problems of the United States trade in wild exotic birds. 

Prior to the adoption of the WBCA, it was recognized that: 

• The United States was the world's largest consumer of wild birds for pets--importing 

more than 7.4 million exotic birds between 1980 and 1991.' High mortality of birds in trade 

increased the number that needed to be captured from the wild to supply the pet industry. 

Experts estimated that for every bird offered for sale in the United States, up to five died 

along the way.2 

• American consumers were unknowingly generating a global demand for exotic birds that 

was severely jeopardizing wild populations. This demand was directly responsible for the 

endangerment of a number of species such as the Moluccan cockatoo, Goffin's cockatoo, and 

the blue-streaked lory. Once a species was imperiled to the point of needing international 

protection, the trade would simply move on to the next available species until it too would 

come close to vanishing. This trend repeated itself again and again. 

• After nearly twenty years of attempting to regulate the commercial trade in exotic wild 

birds for pets through existing domestic laws, international conventions, and other mechanisms, 

the abuses continued. The widespread availability of inexpensive wild-caught birds encouraged 

the exploitation of wild populations and perpetuated the over-reliance of the United States pet 

market on wild bird imports. Despite the absence of the in-situ studies needed to determine 

whether trade was sustainable, birds continued to be removed from the wild in large numbers. 

• The efforts of other nations to prohibit the exportation of their indigenous species had 

often proven futile in the face of the lucrative United States market. To supply this market, 

exotic wild birds were commonly laundered from a country prohibited export to a neighboring 

country, which permitted exports. 

• The legal trade in wild birds was serving as a smoke-screen for the illegal trade. Prior 

to the WBCA, smugglers took advantage of the lack of controls in international trade and the 

lack of basic scientific information on these species to by-pass international and national 

restrictions on wild bird imports. 

• Commercial trade in exotic wild birds was, and is completely unnecessary. Aviculture 

already has enough individuals of most species to work with, so inbreeding is in most cases 

1 Wyerman, James K. Testimony on H.R. 5013, The WilLi Bird Conservation Act. before the Subcommittee 

on Fisheries and Wi/Lilife Conservation and the Environment, 16 June 1992. 

2 Lieberman, Susan. Landmark U.S. Legisliltion Will Conserve Exotic WilLi Birds. Endangered Species 

Technical Bulletin. December 1992. 
66 

completely avoidable.' For some endangered parrot species, there arc more birds in captivity 

than remain in the wild. 

The WBCA is effectively addressing all of these problems. Import prohibitions have been fully 

active for only one short year, and already the Act is a great success. United States imports of 

wild exotic birds have been greatly reduced, giving wild populations the opportunity to recover 

from years of excessive trade. No longer is the United States responsible for the careless waste 

and destruction of wild birds. Instead, we are now a world leader in promoting wild bird 

conservation. 

To ensure that the WBCA continues to achieve its intended goals, we oppose any efforts to 

reduce the Act's requirements for the importation of birds into this country, whether these arc 

wild-caught or captive-bred individuals. The present requirements are the absolute minimum 

necessary to ensure that the WBCA is effective in meeting its purpose, and to e nsure that 

illegal imports are not easily laundered into the legitimate United States pet market. 

Easing WBCA requirements for importing foreign captive-bred birds by req uiring only marking 

or banding would allow for the ingress of large numbers of illegal and even endangered wild 

birds into the United States The profits to be made from such illegal trade are lucrative, 

providing a great incentive for laundering wild birds as captive-bred. A re..:ent indictment of 

Tony Silva, one of the world's most prominent experts in aviculture, charges him with 

involvement in long-term, large-scale smuggling of wild birds into the captive-bred bird market. 

Closed leg bands can easily be placed on the legs of young wild birds, or as in the case of this 

famous bird expert, cruelly forced onto the legs of wild adult birds. The presence of a closed 

band for any bird entering this country docs not guarantee legitimac-y 

We strongly urge the Subcommittee to reauthorize the United States Wild Bird Conse rvation 

Act without any language changes or weakening amendments. By ensuring that exotic birds 

imported into this country no longer jeopardize the status of wild populations, some of the 

world's most beautiful birds will continue to tly free . 

Background--Wild Birds Threatened by Trade 

Worldwide, between 8 and 20 million exotic birds are captured from the wild annually for the 

pet trade. This large-scale trade destroys wild bird populations at an alarming rate. Trade and 

habitat destruction combined threatens at least 1,000 of the 9,200 bird species known to exist.' 

Commercial trade is responsible for the cruel death of millions of birds every year. Even 

before captured wild birds leave their countries of origin, an estimated soq;, die as a result of 

' Toft , Catherine. 1990. "Genetics of Captive Propagation (Pans I and II)" BIRDWORLD. 

• Wyennan. James K. Testimon_v on H.R. 5013. The Wild Bird Conservation Act. before the Subcommittee 

on Fisheries and Wildlife Con.servuJion and the Environmellt. 16 June 1992. 

2 
67 

improper treatment and the stress of captivity.' Those that survive are packed into crates, 

loaded along with other cargo into the holds of airplanes, and transported to consuming 

nations. At the time of export, many of the birds already suffe r from dehydration, starvation, 

heat exhaustion and injury. The added effects of overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, 

temperature extremes, stress and disease, lead to significant levels of transit mortality. For 

example, in just a one-year period before implementation of the WBCA, seven separate 

shipments imported into the United States had more than 1,000 birds dead on arrival.' 

For birds entering the United States, a 30 day quarantine period is required, during which 

mortalities continue to rise. In many of these privately owned facilities, overcrowded and 

unsanitary conditions are prevalent. Because birds from different countries are quarantined 

simultaneously, disease is sometimes rampant. Between 14-20% of the birds imported into the 

United States during the past decade died en route or during quarantine. To compensate for 

this mortality, even greater numbers are removed from the wild to meet consumer demands. 

Tragically, the destructiveness of this trade is not limited to the large numbers of wild birds 

captured fo r export. Indiscriminate methods of capture result in suffering and mortality of 

non-target species. Many of these are unsuitable for trade and are simply discarded. The 

removal of chicks from nest cavities often involves the use of an ax or machete to access the 

young, exacerbating problems of habitat destruction. For example, a 1991 report by 

Argentinean scientist Dr. Enrique Bucher revealed that roughly 100,000 trees were damaged or 

destroyed between 1981 and 1989, as a direct result of the legal collection of the blue-fronted 

amazon parrot for commercial trade. This method of collection left more than 95% of the 

nest sites unusable for future nesting.' The WBCA is now providing a critical resting period 

for this species, whose primary destination was the United States pet market. 

Background--A Failure of Regulation and Control 

After nearly twenty years of attempting to regulate the commercial trade in exotic wild birds 

prior to the WBCA, neither federal laws nor international controls were effective in halting the 

decline of wild populations due to trade, or in preventing widespread illegalities. 

The dire lack of basic biological data for the majority of traded species prevents listing under 

the United States Endangered Species Act. Because disguising the true origin of illegally 

imported birds is common practice, it is almost impossible to adequately enfo rce the United 

States Lacey Act. This law ti.)rbids imports of birds taken illegally in their range countries. 

The majority of nations, including the United States, Brazil, Mexico, Bolivia, Honduras, 

Zimbabwe, Australia and India, have domestic laws prohibiting the export of native birds for 

5 Nilsson. Greta. 198 1. Bird Business: A~ ill !!!!; Co me cial~ Bird Trade. Animal Welfare 

Insti tute: Washington. D.C. 

6 Nilsson. Greta. 1992. Importation ill Birds into the United States ill 1989. Defenders of Wildlife: 

Washington. D.C. 

7 Bucher. E. H. Sustainable Harvesting of Parrots for Conservation. 1992. New World Parrots ill Crisis: 

Solutions from Conservation Biology. Smithsonian Institution Press .. Washington, D.C. 

3 
68 

the pet market. Yet, due to the demands of the United States market, nations wishing to 

protect birds from trade found it impossible to prevent the smuggling of wildlife to neighboring 

countries, which allow exports. 

In one investigation conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Division of Law 

Enforcement, two of the largest importers of wild exotic birds in the United States were found 

to be using the legal trade as cover for massive smuggling operations. By using falsified export 

permits, protected birds worth millions of dollars were smuggled into the United States. The 

export permits were easily obtained by bribery from the officials of neighboring nations that 

allow export. In another case, tens of thousands of African grey parrots were exported for 

years from Senegal before it was discovered that the species did not even exist in that country' 

Once smuggled birds enter our nation, it is impossible to determine their true origin. 

Consequently, United States consumers were unintentionally supporting the illegal trade in 

wild birds, a business that the Wall Street Journal has compared to the drug trade in terms of 

profits, only without the threat of substantial penalties.• 

Almost all exotic bird species for which wild individuals are subject to legal, commercial trade 

are listed on Appendices II and lll of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Appendix 11-listed species, which includes all but 

three species of parrots, are those that might become threatened with extinction if trade is not 

controlled through a system of permits. Prior to granting an export permit for these species 

countries are required to make a finding that the export will not be detrimental to the species. 

However, virtually none of the studies needed to determine the sustainability of trade and 

make the required non-detriment findings has been conducted. 

As unsustainable trade in Appendix 11-listed bird species continues, wild populations eventually 

decline to the point of requiring an Appendix I listing, which bans international trade. 

However, Appendix I protection is often too late to prevent a continuing decline towards 

extinction. Birds in an endangered population become even more prized by collectors due to 

the limited number of individuals remaining. As a result, their dollar value multiplies, fueling 

an illegal trade which furthers the species' decline. In fact. for some species greater numbers 

exist in captivity than in the wild due to trade demands. 

Because existing treaties. laws and regulations were providing inadequate protection, the 

United States, as the major consuming market for exotic wild birds, needed to take a 

leadership role in seeking a solution to the severe problems presented by this destructive trade. 

We needed to support the efforts of other nations to protect their native fauna by ensuring 

that we were no longer a participant in the unsustainable trade in wild exotic birds. 

' Nilsson, Greta. 1992 . .!l!!i12!lililm 2f Birds imo !!!!< United ~ Animal Welfare Institute: 

Washington. D.C. 

' Allen. Michael. Parrot Smuggling Closely Apes the Drug Trade but lsn 't as Risky. The Wall~ 

1ill!!:!!;!!. 28 December 1990. 

4 
69 

The Drafting of a Solution 

In order to address the problems associated with the United States trade in exotic wild birds, a 

Cooperative Working Group on Bird Trade was convened in 1988. Participants included 

representatives from conservation and animal protection organizations, the pet trade, 

aviculture, avian veterinarians and the zoological community. After agreeing that the United 

States demand for exotic pet birds resulted in harm to wild populations and unacceptable levels 

of mortality, the group began drafting legislation to restrict importation fo r commercial trade. 

Though it was agreed that the goal of such legislation should he to end market re liance on wild 

birds for pets, the constituent groups could not reach a consensus on issues such as the timeframe for ending the trade or exemptions for wild imports. 

As a result of these differences, two bills addressing the wild bird trade were introduced 

simultaneously in the United States Congress in 1991. The United States Wild Bird Protection 

Act, which called for an immediate ban on imports of wild birds, was supported by more than 

200 conservation and animal protection groups, ornithologists and scientific organizations. The 

United States Exotic Bird Conservation Act called for a five-year "phase-out" of imports and 

contained numerous loophol es, which would permit large-scale trade to continue under other 

pretenses. This legislation was supported by the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA), 

the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), which represented the major commercial 

importers, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 

After a year and a half of intensive lobbying and hard work, the opposing bills resulted in a 

virtual standstill. Finally, a delica tely-crafted compromise bill, the United States Wild Bird 

Conse rvation Act, was introduced as a result of intense negotiation. The Act passed by 

unanimous Congressional consent and later, signed into law by President George Bush on 

October 23, 1992. 

A Remarkable Success 

Since its implementation in 1992, the United States Wild Bird Conservation Act has resulted in 

a dramatic reduction in the number of wild birds imported into the United States. Whereas in 

1989, approximately 365,655 exotic bird were imported into this country, a recent analysis of 

United States Department of Agriculture quarantine forms reveals that in 1994, roughly 81,000 

birds were imported. Many of these imports were birds receiving an exemption under the 

WBCA or those not included on CITES, and therefore not included in the scope of the 

WBCA. Furthermore, the WBCA has halted the enormous numbers of wild birds which l1ad 

in the past died in exporting countries, in holds of airplanes and in private quarantine stations 

as a result of United States demand fo r cheap imports. Over the years, these mortalities 

amounted to many millions of wild exotic birds--a tragedy that rema ined unseen by American 

consume rs until the campa ign to r nationa l legislatio n. 

The WBCA is indisputably having a positive result worldwide by providing wild bird 

populations with a critical reprieve from the capture of massive numbers for the American pet 

market. Just one example of a species bene titting from WBCA implementation is the bluefronted amazon parrot of Argentina. The WBCA ban on importation of wild birds is providing 

5 
70 

an important opportunity for this species to recuperate from the excessive numbers that were 

taken for export to the United States year after year. 

Through the implementation of the WBCA, the United States is communicating to developing 

nations that we will no longer tolerate the continuation of American activities that hinder their 

efforts to protect indigenous bird species from the devastating effects of international trade. 

Prior to this Act, our involvement in the "legal" wild bird trade was promoting massive 

illegalities in range countries. Now, trade in wild birds will only be permitted when there is 

sufficient proof that it will not be detrimental to wild populations, will not incur significant 

mortalities and will be in complete compliance with the legal requirements of range and 

exporting nations. The responsibility and cost of demonstrating that the trade is not 

destructive will be placed on those profiting from the trade. 

The WBCA has indirectly resulted in improvements, internationally, of controls on the trade in 

exotic wild birds. Promotion of the issue resulted in more than one hundred and twenty 

international airlines adopting bans on the carriage of wild birds for the commercial pet trade. 

Guyana banned all wild bird exports in 1993, as a result of publicity associated with exports to 

America. In addition, the United States' advancement of a legislative solution to problems 

associated with the commercial trade, contributed to adoption of a CITES resolution entitled 

Significant Trade in Animal Species on CITES Appendix II. This resolution seeks to ensure 

trade in these species occurs at sustainable levels, as required by the treaty, and allows CITES 

to set restrictions on trade and/or require population monitoring. 

By restricting imports, the WBCA has successfully shifted the United States' reliance on 

imported wild birds for pets to birds that are bred-in-captivity. Prior to the Act, the 

widespread availability of cheap wild-caught birds fueled the continued exploitation of wild 

populations. Though captive-breeding could easily fulfill the demand for pet birds, the 

economic incentives for captive breeding simply did not exist. It is much cheaper to import 

wild birds than to produce them through captive breeding. As long as wild imports continued, 

aviculturists would be at a competitive disadvantage. Similarly, pet stores that endeavored to 

sell only captive-bred birds often had a difficult time competing with the stores that retailed 

cheaper wild birds. 

By forcing the domestic bird market to shift its emphasis to captive-bred birds, the WBCA is 

not only helping to conserve birds in the wild, but it is also providing American consumers with 

healthy, captive-bred birds, which make more appropriate pets than wild-caught birds. Exotic 

birds bred-in-captivity, unlike wild birds, are accustomed to life in captivity and therefore make 

more suitable companion animals. In addition, they are generally healthier, long-lived pets 

(Some parrots can live for over fifty years.). The shift to birds bred-in-captivity also is 

advantageous from a disease standpoint. Diseases carried by wild birds, such as Newcastle's 

and psittacosis, can threaten human health, poultry, and native bird species. 

In conclusion, the WBCA has made the United States a leader worldwide in efforts to 

conserve wild exotic bird species. No longer do we have the shameful distinction of being the 

largest consumer of the world's most threatened birds for pets. 

6 
71 

Debate Surrounding the WBCA 

At this, its three year anniversary, the United States Wild Bird Conservation Act is still not 

fully implemented through federal regul ations. The process has been a long one, and not 

without complications. Because regulations for the approval of foreign breeding facilities as 

qualifYing facilities have not been promulgated, some individuals are interpreting the lack of 

final regulations as a "virtual ban" under the Act on the importation of any bird for any reason. 

The prevalence of such misinformation within the avicultural community, coupled with 

intentional dissemination of fraudulent literature on the WBCA, has created an atmosphere of 

antagonism. False claims, created to invoke hostility towards the Act, describe how the 

implementing regulations for the WBCA arc being used to ensure the ultimate destruction of 

American aviculture. 

It is important to note that, originatly, groups such as The HSUS supported the Wild Bird 

Protection Act which called for an immediate ban on all wild exotic bird imports into the 

United States. During negotiations on the WBCA, we relinquished three significant measures 

of protection for wild birds that were contained in our original legislation: 1) An immediate 

ban on all wild bird imports; 2) Prohibition on the import of non-CITES listed species and; 3) 

Exceptions to the import ban (we opposed the importation of all wild birds for commercial 

trade). Essentially, through compromise, we were forced to sacrifice the lives of tens of 

thousands of wild birds not listed on CITES which continue to be captured and imported into 

the U nited States every year. 

Furthermore, as participants in the compromise process which resulted in the Wild Bird 

Conse rvation Act, we have remained faithful to our agreement of support for the Act and are 

not viewing the reauthorization process as an opportunity to drag everyone hack to the table in 

attempts to further our earlier efforts for greater import restrictions. 

We find it particularly ironic that the group of individuals--aviculturists-- who arc most likely to 

profit from the end to the commercial trade in imported wild birds are those who are most 

opposed to the WBCA. Their claims that the WBCA will cause the collapse of American 

aviculture or harm the Ame rican pet industry are simply untrue. Bans on the sale of wild birds 

were adopted by both New York and New Jersey in 1984 and 1991, respectively. A survey 

revealed that New York's Wild Bird Act has benefitted not only wild birds, but also the state's 

captive breeding industry, pet stores and bird owners. 10 In New Je rsey, consumer response to 

the ban on the sale of wild-caught birds and the emphasis on captive-breeding is 

overwhelmingly favorable ." 

Since implementation of the Wild Bird Conservation Act, gross retail sales of pet birds and pet 

bird products have almost doubled. These tindings demonstrate that the WBCA is not having 

detrimental impact on United States aviculture or the American pet trade, but rather a positive 

one. 

10 Connor, Bob. Testimony on the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 before House Subcomminees on 

Fisherie.< and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and Trade. 16 June 1992. 

11 Herrighty. Lawrence, letter to Susan Russell. 16 August 1995. 

7 
72 

Importation of Captive-Bred Birds Under the WBCA 

The WBCA allows the import of foreign captive-bred birds. One avenue for importing such 

birds is through the approval of foreign qualifYing facilities. Final regulations delineating the 

requirements for the approval of foreign qualifYing facilities have not yet been finalized. 

Consequently, this section of the Act remains inactivated. This does not mean, as many have 

mistakenly assumed, that the WBCA bans the importation of captive-bred birds into the 

United States and should therefore be modified to facilitate importation of these birds, but 

rather that the release of the final regulations needs to be hastened. 

We acknowledge the frustration of having to wait for final regulations to be issued. In 1988, 

The HSUS, Animal Welfare Institute and nine other animal protection organizations forced 

the FWS into court over a delay in the issuance of regulations implementing portions of the 

Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. The Final Rule was eventually issued in 1992, eleven years 

after Congress instructed the FWS to the promulgate regulations. 

Despite the delay in issuing these regulations, captive-bred birds are entering the United States 

through other avenues provided by the WBCA. Since the implementation of this Act, United 

States imports of captive-bred exotic birds have remained stable, at approximately 50,000 birds 

annually. Foreign captive-bred birds can be, and have been, imported under WBCA 

cooperative breeding program exemptions. In addition, species for which there is no trade in 

wild individuals are included on an "approved list" and can be imported without a WBCA 

permit. Currently, there are more than 50 species of erotic birds on this list, including those 

captive-bred birds that are most commonly imported for the United States. 

Requirements contained in the WBCA for the approval of foreign captive breeding facilities 

should not be weakened in any way. Without adequate regulations to ensure that captive-bred 

imports were truly bred-in-captivity, wild birds could be laundered easily into the United States 

pet trade. Operation Renegade, a long-term undercover operation of the FWS Division of 

Law Enforcement documents the ease of laundering wild birds as captive bred. Individuals arc 

awaiting sentencing for one such scheme, which involved smuggling eggs of highly endangered 

Australian cockatoos into the United States to sell what amounted to more than one million 

dollars worth of birds under the claim that they were captive bred. In another case. these same 

endangered Australian birds were being smuggled into New Zealand, then exported into the 

United States and other countries with export permits stating they were captive-bred. 

Essentially, actions to exempt captive-bred birds from the Act or weaken requirements would 

sanction the importation of wild, threatened and/or legally protected bird species into the 

United States. Without regulation under the WBCA, any CITES-listed bird could be imported 

simply with an accompanying export permit stating that the bird was bred-in-captivity. A 

number of foreign nations have a history of providing "legal" export documents for tens of 

thousands of illegally traded birds. One of the largest commercial importers of wild birds 

(prior to the WBCA) is now in prison for smuggling thousands of protected wild birds, worth 

millions of dollars, into the legal commercial bird trade. He simply hribed foreign officials to 

provide the required CITES export documents. High profits from illegal trade serve as a 

powerful incentive for laundering wild birds as captive-bred. 

8 
73 

There is currently no marking technique which, when used alone, can guarantee the legitimacy 

of an exotic bird. Closed, seamless bands can be useful in identifying whether a bird was 

hatched in captivity, particularly at the state level, but if federal requirements for imported 

captive-bred birds were limited to banding, it would merely encourage exporting countries to 

band young, wild birds in commercial quantities for easy access to the United States market. 

To disguise the illegal origin of birds smuggled into the United States from Mexico, seamless 

leg bands are sometimes plated on young wild birds. 12 Bird dealers in Africa are already in 

possession of closed bands to place on wild birds to launder them as having been raised-incaptivity'' The recent indictment of the famous aviculturist Tony Silva revealed long-term 

smuggling activities which involved some of the most endangered birds in the world. One of 

his proteges stated that Silva instructed him on how to disguise birds born in the wild as birds 

bred in the United States. To mask the identity of exotic wild birds, Silva allegedly forced 

closed bands onto the legs of grown wild birds. 

The use of micro-chips to mark birds is useful, but only when accompanied by appropriate 

paper work. Because implants can be put in a bird at any time or can be taken from a dead 

bird and used again, there are opportunities for abuse. DNA analysis is essentially the only 

reliable method for verifYing the parental origin of an exotic bird, but according to aviculturists, 

this method is cost prohibitive. 

Because there is no practical method of marking, which when used alone, can distinguish a 

legitimately captive-bred bird from one captured in the wild, it is essential that the WBCA 

require verification the origin of captive-bred birds imported into the United States. Requiring 

foreign captive-breeding operations to meet certain standards of approval before they can 

export particular species of captive-bred birds into the United States, reduces the likelihood of 

illegalities. 

Regulation of the Domestic Captive-Breeding lndustrv 

Section 114 of the WBCA stipulates that within two years after the enactment of the WBCA, 

the Secretary of Interior will review opportunities for voluntary programs for labeling exotic 

birds and certifying exotic bird breeding facilities and retail outlets. Pursuant to this request, 

the FWS convened a Public Meeting last April to review existing programs of this nature. The 

meeting was well attended, particularly by aviculturists, who provided statements on existing 

marking programs within the aviculture community. It was apparent that the majority of 

aviculturists in attendance had been misinformed about the intent of the meeting. Repeatedly, 

the FWS had to explain that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ''voluntary", not 

mandatory, programs for marking. Some bird breeders mistakenly believed that if aviculture 

does not come up with a satisfactory way to regulate itself through the institution of voluntary 

programs for labeling exotic birds, then the government will intervene and impose such 

regulations. 

" Michels, Ann. Conversation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent Joe Ramos. September 1995. 

" Knights, Peter. 1993. Investigation of the Trade in African Grey Parrots. EIA. 

9 
74 

Section liS of the Act does not require marking and rccordkccping of all birds in captivity, 

rather it provides the Secretary of the Interior with the option of requiring marking and 

recordkeeping of 1) exotic birds imported into the United States after enactment and; 2) birds 

offered for sale of species subject to a high level of illegal trade (these are not species that arc 

commonly bred-in-captivity). During 1992 Congressional hearings on the exotic bird 

legislation, the concept of marking all birds imported into the United States received broad 

support, including that of Gary Lilienthal, who stated on behalf of the AFA that "they are not 

at all opposed to the Secretary of the Interior having authorization to promulgate regulations 

to control importation, after enactment, of birds through any marking that's necessary on birds 

imported post-enactment."" 

Presently, some avic:ulturists argue that costs ao;sociatcd with banding and recordkeeping would 

inhibit aviculture and put bird breeders out of business. Considering that closed bands can 

cost as little as forty cents each, it is unlikely that marking criteria would put aviculturists o ut 

of business. Since 1984, the New York Wild Bird Act has required the marking of all exotic 

birds for sale in the state. Since the law was implemented, the state has experienced a boom in 

captive-breeding. 

It is essentia l that Section 115 remain intact so the Secretary of the Interior has the authority 

to require marking as a tactic to help curtail smuggling of particular species. The scope of any 

mandatory marking would be limited to the most commonly smuggled species. Each year, up 

to 150,000 parrots are smuggled from Mexico into the United Statesl5 This illegal trade 

greatly endangers parrot populations throughout Mexico and Central America. In a licld study 

of the reproduction of yellow-naped amazon parrots in Guatemala, not one chick nedged 

successfully for two consecutive years because they were all taken for the illegal tradel' 

According to Ernesto Enkerlin, a researcher in Monterrey, smuggling in Mexico has reduced 

red-crowned parrot populations by 80 percent and yellow-headed parrot populations by 90 

percent in the past 20 years17 

The availability of cheap smuggled birds in the United States undermines efforts to market 

legal captive-bred birds. In addition, since smuggled birds arc not processed through the 

U nited States Department of Agriculture quarantine system for Newcastle's disease, they pose 

a signilicant threat to the American poultry industry and to captive exotic birds. Though 

marking alone cannot ensure the legality of a bird, in coordination with record-keeping, it can 

help identify those birds for sale that have not been produced by breeders and arc, therefore, 

illegal. 

" Lilienthal. Gary. Testimony of the American Federation of Aviculture to a Joint Hearing of the U.S. 

House of Representatives Subcomminee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and 

Subcommittee on Trade. 16 June 1992. 

" Wildlife Con,ervation International. "The Wild Bird Trade: When a Bird in the Hand Means None 

in the Bush." Wildlift:Conservation International. New York Zoological Society: 1992. 

" Followill. Dave. -Raiders of the Rain Forest - The Tragedy of Smuggling." AFA Watchbtrd. 

July/August 1995. 

" Hancock, Lee. "Bird Smuggling Called Big Border Problem." Dallas Moming News. 

10 
75 

Exotic wild birds may start reentering the United States market as the FWS begins approving 

foreign countries' sustainable use management plans. United States aviculturists must take 

advantage of this time to begin promoting the purchase of captive-bred, instead of wild-caught 

birds. Labeling, recordkeeping, and informing the public about the various methods of labeling 

is an integral part of this effort and will help aviculturists to establish themselves as a source of 

quality birds. 

Cooperative Breeding Programs 

Permits for exemptions under the WBCA can be issued by the FWS in accordance with Section 

112 to allow for the importation of otherwise prohibited species, if the FWS has determined 

that the importation will not threaten the species' survival. In order to apply for a permit, 

aviculturists must be part of a cooperative breeding program. Some aviculturists mistakenly 

believe that the approval requirements for such programs are impossible to meet and must be 

weakened substantially. 

Exemptions have been granted under this section of the WBCA. However, only eleven 

applications for the approval of cooperative breeding programs have been submitted to the 

FWS. Of the eleven, five have been approved, four are pending, one was abandoned and one 

rejected. In some cases, applicants did not submit all of the required information. 

Consequently, the review process was delayed because the FWS had to wait until the remaining 

information was submitted before proceeding. Since only eleven aviculturists have submitted 

applications for the approval of cooperative breeding programs, it is difficult to understand 

how they can be critical of the process. 

Aviculturists have made erroneous claims that the application process for cooperative breeding 

exemptions are simply too involved and that is why only eleven applications for the approval of 

such programs have been submitted. However, the majority of the requirements are measures 

that aviculturists should already be undertaking, if they intend to maintain healthy captive 

populations. Managing for genetic diversity necessitates a level of cooperation among 

aviculturists that has never been present before. Hesitanc-y or an unwillingness to cooperate 

and form species-specific breeding groups will eliminate any hope of achieving sound genetic 

management of captive-species. 

Aviculturists must be willing to share the guardianship of captive birds for breeding purposes 

and to organize studbooks. They should continually be on the watch for problems that can 

threaten the genetic integrity of captive populations. Furthermore, if they intend to manage 

for genetic diversity, then they need to label birds and maintain records in order to identity 

individual specimens and their pedigrees." The aviculture community must work 

collaboratively and be willing to communicate about the availability of birds for breeding. 

Given the V<c~t number of birds that arc now in captivity. it is time for avieulturists to move on 

and establish genetically well-managed breeding programs." Instead of depending on exotic 

" Toft. Catherine. 1992. ..Genetics of Captive Propagation (Parts I and II) ... 8/RDIVORLD. 

19 Toti. Catherine. 1992. '"Genetics of Captive Propagation (Parts 1 and 11). •• 8/RDIVORLD. 

II 
76 

wild imports to supplement captive birds, aviculturists must adjust their practices towards the 

goal of establishing self-sustaining captive populations. All species of commercial importance 

are already represented in sufficient numbers in captivity to constitute a viable gene pool.20 

The majority of bird species that are not available to aviculturists for captive breeding are either 

critically endangered and already protected by international law, or prohibited from trade in 

their country of origin. 

Some aviculturists are mistakenly lead to believe that they are conserving exotic wild birds by 

importing them from their countries of origin, before they suffer from habitat destruction or 

other pressures, such as hunting. They might truly believe that they are "saving" species by 

maintaining them in captivity for future reintroduction and that the WBCA is inhibiting their 

ability to do so by restricting the importation of wild birds for breeding purposes. However, 

claims of this nature are most often a thinly-veiled rationalization for a personal obsession to 

own an endangered species or a kind rarely found in captivity. 

The WBCA recognizes that American aviculturists have a valuable role to play in the 

conservation of exotic wild bird species, in terms of their ability to meet consumers' demand for 

pet birds through captive breeding. However. attempts to use captive-breeding, with the 

eventual goal of reintroduction. as a conservation technique, in the absence of appropriate insitu conservation efforts, actually can be detrimental to wild populations. 

Conclusion 

Through the enactment of the WBCA, the United States is working successfully to address the 

problems associated with the trade in exotic wild birds. By greatly reducing imports of wild 

birds for the American pet market, the WBCA has removed a significant threat to wild exotic 

bird populations. The United States is now a leader in worldwide efforts to improve the status 

of exotic wild birds species. Meanwhile, consumers' demand for pet birds arc being fulfilled 

through captive breeding, and the United States exotic pet bird market is flourishing. Since the 

passage of the WBCA domestic retail sales of birds and bird-related products have soared. 

The WBCA does not infringe upon the ability of United States aviculturists to breed birds. The 

importation of exotic captive-bred birds is subject to regulation because. if we are truly 

interested in protecting wild bird populations from trade. we must ensure that these imports arc 

genuinely captive-bred. As history has shown, we cannot depend on the word of exporters. 

importers, or a foreign governments that a bird is captive bred. The profits to be gained by 

illegal trade are simply too great. 

Promoting the conservation of exotic birds in the wild is a goal that most of us share. The 

United States Wild Bird Conservation Act is a valuable tool for accomplishing this goal. Let's 

not jeopardize the continued success of this unique legislation. We urge the Members of the 

Subcommittee to support the reauthorization of the Wild Bird Conservation Act without 

weakening amendments. 

"' Allen. C. M., & K.A. Jobnsoo. 1991. Psitticine Cnptive Breeding Survey-A Survey of Private A vi culture 

in the United States. World Wildlife Food U.S .• Washington. D.C. 

12 
77 

TESTIMONY FROM 

THE 

AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 

THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL 

AND 

THE ASSOCIATION FOR PARROT CONSERVATION 

ON THE 

REAU1110RJZATION OF THE 

EXOTIC WlUJ BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992 

Prepared by: 

Dr. Steven R. Beissinger, Associate Professor of Ecology & Conservation 

Biology and Curator of Ornithology, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 

Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. 

Phone: (203)432-5120; Fax: (203)432-5942. 

28 September 1995 
78 

Executive Summary: 

Professional ornithologists strongly support the reauthorization of the Exotic Wild Bird 

Conservation Act of 1992. Until the passage of the act, wild bird populations were being 

decimated as a result of importation into the United States and other countries. International 

trade threatens many groups of birds, but principal problems have been seen with parrots, 

which are unable to sustain much pressure on wild populations. International regulations have 

been unable to control this multi-million dollar trade, which increasingly threatens the existence 

of wild bird populations and entire species. Captive breeding is the major source of individuals 

in trade for only a handful of bird species. Prior passage of the act, the numbers of wildcaught live exotic birds imported into the United States for commercial activities were 

unsustainable and indefensible. The sale of these wild-caught birds had to be stopped and the 

Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act accomplished this goal in an effective manner. 

Captive breeding of birds can serve a variety of values (exhibit, pets, research, 

conservation education, and fund-raising pruposes), but birds in captivity have very limited 

utility for recovering endangered species in the wild. To recover endangered species, birds 

must: (I) be bred in captivity for reintroduction at the earliest possible opportunity; (2) kept in 

single species facilities in countries of origin to minimize disease risks; (3) be kept from 

becoming tame or domesticated, which occurs very rapidly in captivity; (4) be part of 

conservation programs that are fully integrated with field efforts to conserve habitats and 

correct limiting factors causing population decline. Aviculturists have been very reluctant to 

meet these requirrnents. Their birds are kept in multispecies facilites so are high disease risks 

to reintroduce, and they are selected to become domesticated to be good companion animals. 

Sirds produced by private or commercial aviculture are hardly ever suitable for reintroduction to 

the wild. 

Critics of the Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act claim that the decrease in the 

importation of wild birds makes it difficult to maintain the genetic diversity of their captive 

populations. Only limited genetic diversity is required for maintaining permanent captive 

populations not used for reintroduction to the wild (i.e. avicultural collections). All species of 

commercial importance are already represented in sufficient numbers in captivity to constitute a 

viable gene pool under active, cooperative management (50-75 birds per species). Species 

with fewer individuals in captivity are obviously not of commercial importance. 

The Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act has good provisions to encourage and control 

sustainable use. But before strong hopes are placed in sustained harvesting as a conservation 

strategy, several demonstration projects must be conducted to determine the feasibility and 

scale of harvesting. In the face of pressures from current unsustainable harvesting, most 

attempts at sustainable harvesting are likely to fail. Obtaining the biological and sociological 

data to conduct a sustainable trade will require investments of time and money. but trade 

should not have been allowed in the first place without this information. 

It is premature to suggest many improvements to an act which is so recent that many of 

its rules and regulations have yet to be promulgated. However, there are two suggestions that 

we would make: (l) The most pressing need is to allocate money to the fund that was created 

by the act for studies needed to support and enforce the act (e.g., investigations of the 

potential of sustainable harvesting, or the development of genetic markers to monitor the birds 

from captive breeding programs). Funding is also needed to ensure the proper enforcment of 

this legislation and to deter smuggling; and (2) Ten bird families were exempt from this act due 

to political and not biological reasons, and this exception should be eliminated. 
79 

Introduction 

I am a professor of ecology and conservation biology at Yale University , and curator of 

ornithology at the Peabody Museum. I have conducted field srudies and published extensively 

on the biology and conservation of birds throughout the United States, Latin America, and the 

Carribean for the past 20 years. In particular, I am a recognized authority on avian population 

ecology, endangered species conservation, parrot and raptor biology, and the exploitation of and 

international trade in birds. 

I testifY today on behalf of eight organizations of scientists who study birds. The 

American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) is the largest and oldest organization of professional 

ornithologists in the United States. Representing over 4500 scientists from each of the United 

States and from 66 countries around the world, the organization is dedicated to the srudy of birds 

and their conservation. The Ornithological Council consists of the AOU and six other 

professional ornithological societies of North America (the Association of Field Ornithologists, 

Colonial Waterbird Society, Cooper Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor 

Research Foundation, and Wilson Ornithological Society). The Association for Parrot 

Conservation (APC) represents more than 100 scientists from the United States, Latin America, 

the Carribbean, Africa, Europe, and Australia concerned with the scientific srudy and 

conservation of parrots. Together, these groups comprise the vast majority of professional 

scientists who study birds. 

These professional societies have thoroughly investigated the scientific basis for the 

international trade in wild and captive-reared birds. In 1990 the AOU formed a subcommittee of 

five distinguished ornithologists concerned with bird trade issues representing academic 

ornithologists, conservationists, zoo biologists, and museum curators. The charge of this 

subcommittee was to review the problems associated with the bird trade and to make 

recommendations for effective ways of dealing with the detrimental influences of trade on wild 

bird populations. Its report is appended to this testimony. Likewise, APC held a symposium in 

June 1994, and developed policy statements on the wild bird trade and on the use of captive 

breeding in conservation. These statements are also appended to this testimony . 

Together, these documents and the scientific literature I will discuss represent a 

concensus of current scientific opinion on the wild bird trade, and the role of captive breeding 

and sustainable harvesting in avian conservation. They contain important conclusions that 

pertain to the reauthorization of the Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act that I will now 

summarize. 

The Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act Needs to Be Reauthorized 

Until the passage of the Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992, wild bird 

populations were being decimated as a result of importation into the United States and other 

countries. The United States had represented the largest market for an international trade in wild 

birds that exceeds two million individuals annually (Inskipp 1990). For example, nearly two 

million birds from 85 countries were legally imported into the United States between 1986 and 

1988 (Nilsson 1990). Forty-three percent of these birds were parrots, while about 54% were 

finches (Estrildidae, Fringillidae, and others) primarily from Africa. The remaining 3% 

represented 77 different families of birds. The countries exporting the most birds to the United 

States were Senegal, Tanzania, and Argentina. 

2 
80 

Parrots represent the largest monetary share of commerce. The United States accounted 

for 47 % of all parrots sold internationally, and perhaps 80% of the trade in Neotropical parrots, 

followed by the European Economic Community and Japan (Thomsen and Mulliken 1992). 

Approximately 1.8 million Neotropical psinacines, nearly all captured from the wild , were 

legally exported for trade from 1982 to 1988 (Thomsen and Mulliken 199l.). The actual numbers 

taken from the wild for commercial activities were probably several times as large, when internal 

trade, illegal export (e.g., 150,000 parrots per year smuggled through Mexico; Thomsen and 

Hemley 1987), and high mortality rates of birds harvested from the wild (e.g .• 60% die before 

exportation in Mexico; Ramos and hugo 1985) are considered. These data led Thomsen and 

Mulliken ( 1992) to estimate that the actual numbers of wild Neotropical psittacines harvested for 

international trade between 1982 and 1988 may have been almost four million birds. The retail 

monetary value of the 1.8 million parrots legally exported during this period has been estimated 

at $1.6 billion (Thomsen and Brautigam 1991). 

This multi-million dollar trade increasingly threatens the existence of wild bird 

populations and even entire species. Although nearly all exporting countries are members of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna (CITES), and many exporting 

countries have adopted trade regulations, the domestic and international laws which are supposed 

to ensure that trapping for trade does not result in species declines have been largely ineffective 

(Thomsen and Mulliken 1992). Together. trade and habitat destruction now clearly represent the 

two major conservation problems afflicting these and many other kinds of birds worldwide. 

International trade threatens many groups of birds, but principal problems have been seen 

with parrots, which as a group are unable to sustain much pressure on wild populations (lnsk.ipp 

et al. 1988). Collar and Juniper (1992) concluded that 42 of approximately 140 species of 

Neotropical parrots are currently at risk of extinction . For 22 of these species, trade is a major 

cause of endangerment. Examples of parrots now critically threatened by trade include the 

Spix's Macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), the Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), the 

Tucuman Amazon (Amazona tucumana), and the Red-crowned Amazon (Amazona viridigenalis) 

(Collar and Juniper 1992). 

Although parrots are most threatened by trade, other birds are also affected (Nilsson 

1989). Among nonpsittacines threatened by trade are Toucan Barbets (Semnornis 

ramphastinus}, Red Sisk.ins (Spinus cucullatus), Rothschild's Starlings (Leucopsar rothschildi). 

Hill Mynahs (Gracula religiosa), Sumba Hornbills (Rhyticeros everetti), White-necked 

Picathartes (Picathartes gymnocephalus), Yellow Cardinals (Gubernatrix cristata), Yellowfaced Siskins (Carduelis yarrellii), Long-wattled Umbrellabirds (Cephalopterus penduliger), 

Gurney's Pittas (Pitta gumeyi), Buffy-throated Seedeaters (Sporophilafrontalis), Marsh 

Seedeaters (S. palustris), Seven-colored Tanagers (Tangarafastuosa), and Laughing Thrushes 

(Garrulax spp.). 

Little information is available on how trade is affecting most nonendangered species. 

However. if the Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva) is any indication, trade is probably 

having a strong effect even on many common species. Over 45,000 Blue-fronted Amazons were 

exported from Argentina between 1982 and 1986. It is virtually inconceivable that this species 

can continue to sustain such harvest levels much longer, as evidenced by its disappearance from 

many areas of its range (Beissinger and Bucher 1992). 

Trade is likely to be as threatening to most parrots as habitat destruaion, because mony 

parrots are habitat generalists. This is exemplified by the large number of parrot species that 

have been introduced, as a result of the pet trade, and have become established in urban habitats 

around the world. In addition, the harvest of nestlings of hole-nesting species often involves 

3 
81 

destruction of nest trees, posing a further stress on wild populations limited by nest availability. 

Captive breeding is the major source of individuals in trade for only a handful of bird 

species - Budgerigars (Melopsinacus undularus), Cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus), Canaries 

(Serinus conaria), Zebra and Bengalese Finches (Amandava subflava and Lonchura domestica), 

most Agapomis lovebirds, several species of cockatoos (Cacarua), and a number of Australian 

finches (e.g., Chloebia gouldiae, Poephila cincta, Poephila acuticauda). For most other birds, 

essentially all individuals in trade come directly from wild sources, either trapped as free-flying 

adults or taken as nestlings. 

The importation of live exotic birds should be sustainable. It should not pose risks for 

wild populations of species that are imported. There is no justification for commercial endeavors 

to result in the extinction in the wild of a species. On the basis of the information presented 

above, the numbers of wild-caught live exotic birds imponed into the United States for 

commercial activities before the passage of the act were unsustainable and indefensible. The 

sale of these wild-caught birds had to be stopped so that species would not be driven to 

extinction. Most countriesw with species exploited for international trade acknowledged the 

current crisis of unsustainable use by simply prohibiting all trade in wild-caught birds. 

The Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act accomplished this goal in an effective manner, 

yet still encouraged the sustainable use and captive breeding of species. The need for this act 

remains today, and choosing not to reauthorize it would guarantee a return to the situation that 

persisted before 1992 which threarened many bird species. Populations of most species have 

been severely affected by decades of overharvesting, and many of these species reproduce very 

slowly. It will require several generations for populations of most species to recover. Many of 

the most desirable birds in the trade are long-lived and generation times probably exceed 10 

years. Thus, the goals of this act will probably not be reached for at least 20 years. 

The Legitimate Role of Captive Breeding in Recovering Endangered Birds 

Captive breeding of birds can serve a variety of values. In particular, captive breeding 

can provide birds for exhibit, pets. conservation education, and fund-raising pruposes. Captive 

populations can be an important source for fundamental biological research and training. While 

all are potentially valuable contributions of captive birds, they are only indirectly related to 

recovering endangered populations of wild species. Captive breeding for other purposes should 

not be confused with captive breeding for recovering endangered species, which requires very 

different activities and precautions. 

To recover endangered species, birds must be bred in captivity for release in the wild 

(reintroduction) at the earliest possible opportunity. Every precaution must be taken to avoid 

placing species in close proximity to minimize disease risks by placing birds in single species 

facilities. Ideally, these facilities should be within the native range of the species to minimize 

exposure to (and introduction of) exotic diseases (to the wild populations). Special care must 

be taken to keep the birds from becoming tame or domesticated because they are less likely to 

survive when reintroduced. Such domestification proceeds very rapidly in captivity. Also, 

captive breeding programs must be fully integrated with field conservation efforts to preserve 

habitats and correct the factors that originally caused the population decline. Since these are 

exotic birds, countries in their native range should be involved in their captive breeding and 

reintroduction. 

4 
82 

Aviculturists conunitted to conservation could play a role in future reintroduction 

programs if adequate control over disease threats and domestication can be achieved, and the 

ownership and control of birds is given up to a central authority . To date , aviculturists have been 

very reluctant to meet these requirments. Their birds are usually kept in multispecies facilites in 

close proximity to many other species so are high disease risks to reintroduce to the wild. 

Furthermore, their birds are selected to become domesticated to be good companion animals. 

In general, birds in captivity have very limited utility for recovering their wild 

counterparts. This conclusion has been reached by scientists involved in some of the most 

intensive captive breeding programs for endangered species recovery (Snyder et al . in press). 

While captive breeding has served an imponam role in the recovery of a few select species, it 's 

potential for recovering endangered populations is severely limited by: (I) difficulties in 

breeding certain species in captivity; (2) difficulties in successfully reintroducing many species 

to the wild ; (3) the high costs of captive breeding facilities and personnel; (4) the risks of 

introducing exotic diseases, which are common in captive environments, to the wild; (5) 

progressive domestification and loss of genetic diversity in captivity which makes animals 

unsuitable for reintroduction; (6) problems in ensuring continuity of captive breeding programs 

for the decade or more it may require for successful reintroduction; and (7) the premptions of 

other, better techniques that could conserve endangered species in the wild . Details about these 

limitations can be found in the appended APC policy statement on captive breeding . 

Thus, captive breeding of exotic birds as a conservation strategy should be pursued only 

as a last reson, and only as pan of internationally recognized and structured programs. The 

promotion of captive breeding as conservation by aviculturists is sometimes a rationalization for 

keeping exotic birds in captivity in private collections. Such an excuse was used by convicted 

cockatoo smugglers this past summer to justify their illegal activities. 

Captive Breeders I>o Not Need Continued Access to Wild Stocks 

Critics of the Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act claim that the decrease in the 

importation of wild birds makes it difficult to maintain the genetic diversity of their captive 

populations. This is a misconception, as limited genetic diversity is required for maintaining 

permanent captive populations not used for reintroduction to the wild (i.e. avicultural 

collections). In fact, all species of commercial imponance are already represented in sufficient 

numbers in captivity to constitute a viable gene pool under active, cooperative management (50-

75 birds per species). Species with fewer individuals in captivity are obviously not of 

commercial importance. In other words, if aviculturists would only be willing to manage their 

gene pools by moving birds among their private collections, they could take advantage of the 

more than sufficient genetic diversity that is already present in maintaining their captive 

populations. 

For aviculture and captive breeding of exotic species to decrease pressure on wild 

populations and result in conservation, captive breeding must become self-sustaining. In other 

words, captive breeding must be conducted without requiring the continued importation of wildcaught birds. Instead of supplementing captive birds with wild imports, private aviculturists 

must begin to adjust their practices toward the goal of self-sustaining captive populations, 

including better coordination of studbooks to maintain genetically viable captive gene pools. 

Organizing the exchange of birds to become genetically self-sufficient has been hampered by the 

secretive nature of the aviculture community and by receiving financial support from businesses 

that benefit directly from the continued importation of wild-caught birds. 

5 
83 

Sustainable Harvesting is Goal Worth Pursuing Cautiously 

If importation of wild birds is to continue, it must be done on a sustainable basis, that is it 

must be implemented in such a way that it does not pose threats to wild populations. Imponant 

biological information is needede to determine what levels of harvest would be sustainable 

(Beissinger and Bucher 1992). This information has not been gathered for any species in the 

trade, most export quotas are not based on scientific data and quotas for most countries need to 

be lowered drastically. Biological data suggest that there is a good potential to harvest some 

parrots in a sustainable marmer through habitat management operations (Beissinger and Bucher 

1992), although no "ranching" projects with free-flying birds have been attempted to date. 

Careful evaluations of the biological, social, and economic problems of implementing harvest 

programs must be conducted. 

When implemented properly and conservatively, however, sustainable harvesting could 

provide advantages for conservtllionists, aviculturists, the pet industry, and local peoples. 

Conservationists could gain by having healthy populations of wild parrots, and by transmitting 

economic value to habitats to help conserve them in their natural states. For example, if parrots 

can be sustainably harvested from tropical rain forests, this would provide another commodity 

which might help to make extractive reserves more economically valuable than forest land 

cleared for timber harvest or cattle production. Sustained harvesting of many bird species will 

require that substantial areas of land be maintained as mature forest. Aviculture and the pet 

industry would have a steady but small inflow of legally imported birds already conditioned to 

captivity . Finally, the profits from these programs could be directed to the local people in need 

of ways to support themselves, and the economy of nations that are trying to develop. Currently, 

local people receive hardly any financial benefit compared to the importers who have become 

wealthy from this trade. 

Realizing the benefits of trade requires a degree of control over harvesting that is 

difficult and expensive to achieve. Solving the biological problems associated with sustained 

harvest of birds may be easier than solving some of the social and political problems. Particular 

problerm for sustainable harvesting programs are posed by the illegal laundering of birds by 

personnel in these programs, poaching of birds by people outside of these program, the 

development of reliable marking systems to identify legal birds, and the temptation to 

overharvest to make more profit. Without strong controls over harvesting programs, attempts at 

sustained harvesting could increase conservtllion problems rather than solve them. 

The Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act has good provisions to encourage and control 

sustainable use. But before strong hopes are placed in sustained harvesting as a conservation 

strategy, several demonstration projects must be conducted to determine the feasibility and scale 

of harvesting. Experimental programs of sustained harvesting could be run to find solutions to 

the problems of illegal laundering of birds, poaching, reliable marking systems, and 

overharvesting. In the face of pressures from current unsustainable harvesting, most attempts at 

sustainable harvesting are likely to fail. Obtaining the biological and sociological data to 

conduct a sustainable trade will require investments of time and money, but trade should not 

have been allowed in the first place without this information. 

Improvements Needed To the Act 

It is premature to suggest many improvements to an act which is so recent that many of 

its rules and regulations have yet to be promulgated. However, there are two suggestions that we 

6 
84 

would make. 

The most pressing R..~ is to allocate money to the fund that was created by the act. This 

fund is supposed to be used!,t1le kinds of programs and studies needed to support and enforce the 

act (e.g. , investigations of the potential of sustainable harvesting , or the development of genetic 

markers to monitor the birds from captive breeding programs). Funding is also needed to ensure 

the proper enforcment of this legislation and to deter smuggling. 

Finally, ten bird families were exempt from this act due to political and not biological 

reasons, and this exception should be eliminated. The only reason these families were exempted 

from this legislation was because of pressure from special interest groups - a few game bird 

breeders tied up the telephones of a congressional aide . 

Excluding these so called "game birds" from this legislation actually reinforced a market 

for them. Traders no longer able to export species they have traded for years will switch to these 

species, which up until now have primarily been captive-bred. And they will find a market for 

wild birds in zoos, breeders, and private collections. 

Only a handful of the species in these families are covered by the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) or CITES. Many of the rest are thought to be declining in the wild. For example, 

Oscillated Turkeys are not on CITES, nor are they listed as endangered species, but they are 

declining rapidly. They are bred in captivity, but they are also being taken from the wild. 

Similarly, this legislation endorses greater importations of Black-fronted Piping Guans from 

Argentina and Horned Guans from Guatemala. Both species are considered at risk of extinction 

by IUCN, but are not on CITES or listed under ESA and are imported by private breeders. 

Private breeder are vying to import White-eared Pheasants from China, even though they are 

very rare in the wild, because the captive population in the U.S. suffers from inbreeding. The 

first Chinese importer of this species would make a killing! 

Excluding entire families from this bill ro promote the conservation of exotic birds was 

simply inappropriate. It gives no impetus to develop programs to the manage genetic diversity 

of captive populations of these families, since wild stock will always be available, or to promote 

their sustainable use in the wild. The act fosters the mismanagement of birds that are not only 

threatened by habitat destruction, but are often hunted throughout their range by local peoples. 

Instead of excludir.g these families or others (e.g. raptors), let the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service evaluate which species should be traded . Most game birds of economic importance are 

primarily captive-bred and would be placed on the "clean list" of captive-bred species anyway. 

In reality, no exemption for them is needed in the definition of exotic bird. 

Literature Cited 

Beissinger, S. R., and E. H. Bucher. 1992. Can parrots be conserved through sustainable 

harvestir.g? BioScience 42:164-173. 

Collar N. J., & P. Andrew. 1988. Birds to watch : the ICBP world checklist of threatened birds. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., ICBP Techn. Publ. No. 8. 

, & A. T. Juniper. 1992. Dimensions and causes of the parrot crisis. Pages 1-24 ill New 

-"World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology (S. R. Beissinger and N. F. R. 

Snyder, Eds.). Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. 

7 
85 

Inskipp, T. 1990. Numbers and value of wild birds in trade. Paper presented at tbe XX World 

Conference of tbe International Council for Bird Preservation, Hamilton, New Zealand. 

, S. Broad, & R. Luxmoore. 1988. Significant trade in wildlife: a review of selected 

-species in CITES Appendix II. Volume 3: Birds. Cambridge, United Kingdom, World 

Conservation Union (IUCN). 

Nilsson, G. 1989. Importation of birds into tbe United States in 1985. Washington, D.C., 

Animal Welfare Institute. 

__ . 1990. Importation of birds into the United States in 1986- 1988. Washington, D.C., 

Animal Welfare Institute. 

Ramos, 0. M., & E. litigo. 1985. Commercializacion de psitacidos en Mexico. Memoria Primer 

Simposium lnternacional de Fauna Silvestre. 

Snyder, N. F. R., S. R. Derrickson, S. R. Beissinger, J. W. Wiley, T. B. Smitb, W. D. Toone, and 

B. Miller. In press. Limitations of captive breeding in endangered species recovery. 

Conservation Biology. 

Thomsen, J. B., & A. Brautigam. 1991. Sustainable use of Neotropical parrots. Pages (in press) 

ill Neotropical wildlife use and conservation (J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford, Eds). 

Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 

__ ,and T. A. Mulliken. 1992. Trade in neotropical psittacines and its conservation 

implications. Pages 221-239 inS. R. Beissmgec and N. F. R. Snyder, eds. New World 

parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. Smitbsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

__ , & G. Hemley. 1987. Bird trade ... bird bans. Traffic(USA) 7(2&3):1,21-24. 

8 
86 

THE CONSERVATION CRISIS 

International Trade in Live Exotic Birds Creates a 

Vast Movement That Must Be Halted 

BIRD TRADE SUBCoMMITI'EE oF mE AOU CoNsERVATION CoMMITTEE' 

While we have heard warnings about a large decline in birds that breed in the Temperate Zone and 

winter in the tropics ("Neotropical migrants"), a "reverse migration" of sorts is draining avian diversity 

from many tropical areas to the living rooms of developed countries. In recent years, the international 

trade in live exotic birds has grown greatly. Estimates 

of the current magnitude of the live trade in exotic 

birds range from two to"five million individuals annually (Inskipp I990). These figures exclude the trade 

of 15.9 to 26.5 million swiftlet nests annually from 

southeast Asia (Lau and Melville 1990). 

Because the UnitE•d States is presently the largest 

importer of exotic birds in the world (Mulliken and 

Thomsen 1990), the conservation of birds in other 

countries will be affected greatly by regulations of 

the United States concerning trade. The AOU Conservation Committee formed a subcommittee of or· 

nithologists concerned with bird trade issues in july 

1990. The charge of this subcommittee was to review 

the problems associated with "the bird trade and to 

make recommendations for effective ways to deal with 

the detrimental influences of trade on wild bird populations. 

Nearly two million birds from 85 countries were 

legally imported into the United States between 1986 

and 1988 (Nilsson I '190). Forty-three percent of these 

birds were parrots, while about 54% were finches (Estrildidae, Fringillida.e, and others) primarily from Africa. The remaining 3% represented 77 different families. The countries exporting the most birds to the 

United States were Senegal, Tanzania, and Argentina. 

Accurate data on the scale of internal (nonexport) 

trade in birds are not available, although this trade 

is also thought to be substantial in many countries. 

Parrots represent the largest monetary share of 

commerce. Forty-seven percent of all parrots sold intemationally,and perhaps 80% of all Neotropical parrots, are sold in the United States. Most of the remainder is bought by members of the European 

Economic Community and japan (Thomsen and Mulliken 1991). Apprm<imately 1.8 million Neotropical 

psittacines, nearly "11 captured from the wild, were 

legally exported for trade from 1982 to 1988 (Thomsen 

and Mulliken 1991). Estimates of internal trade, parrot 

mortality before exportation, and the magnitude of 

'Steven R. Beissinger (Chair), Noel F. R. Snyder, 

Scott R. Derrickson. Frances C. james, and Scott M. 

Lanyon. 

illegal smuggling suggest that the number of birds 

removed from the wild would actually have been two 

or three times as great as the legal expmis Uames 1991, 

Thomsen and Mulliken 1991). 

This multimillion dollar trade increasingly threatens the existence of wild bird populations and even 

entire species. Although nearly all exporting coun-

.tries are members of the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Flora and Fauna (CITES), and 

many exporting countries have adopted trade regulations, the domestic and international laws that are 

supposed to ensure that trapping for trade does not 

result in species' declines have been largely ineffective (Thomsen and Mulliken 1991). Trade now threatens the very existence of a number of these species, 

but principal problems have been seen with psittacines, which as a group are unable to sustain much 

pressure on wild populations (lnskipp et a!. 1988). 

Collar and juniper (1991) concluded that 42 of approximately 140 species of Neotropical parrots are 

currently at risk of extinction. For 22 of these species, 

trade is a major cause of endangerment. Examples of 

parrots now critically threatened by trade include the 

Spix's Macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii), the Hyacinth Macaw 

(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), and the Red-crowned 

Parrot (Amazona viridigenalis). Exam pies of other birds 

threatened by trade include Toucan Barbels (Semnornis ramphastinus), Red Siskins (Spmus cucullatus), and 

Yellow-faced Siskins (Carduelis yarrelliz) (Nilsson 1989). 

Thus, trade and habitat destruction together now 

clearly represent the two major conservation problems afflicting these and many other birds worldwide. 

Captive breeding is the major source of individuals 

in trade for only a relatively few species-Budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus), Cockatiels (Nymphicus 

hollandicus), Common Canaries (Smnus conaria), Zebra 

Waxbills (Amandava subflava), and Bengalese Finches 

(Lonchura domtstica), most Agapornis lovebirds, several 

species of cockatoos (Cacatua), and a number of Australian finches (e.g. Chlotbill gouldiae, Poephila cincta, 

and P. acuticauda). For most other species, essentially 

all individuals in trade come dinectly from the wild, 

either trapped as free-flying adults or taken as nestlings. In many areas the harvest of nestlings of holenesting species involves destruction of nest trees. This 

poses a further stress on wild populations limited by 

nest availability (Beissinger and Bucher 1991 ). Thr 

Bird Trade Subcommittee believes strongly that current 

numbers of wild-caught live exotic birds being imported into 

the United States for commercial actitJitits are indefensible 

982 The Auk 108: 982-984. October 1991 
87 

October 1991) Commmtary 983 

artd that tht Slllt of thts< wild-caught birds must bt stapptd 

as soort as possrhlt. . · 

A detailed report documenting our subcommittee's 

recommendations is in progress and will. be completed .shortly for publication. In this report we develop seven principles for guiding an international 

trade in live exotic birds, based on the implications 

of an international bird trade on the conservation of 

wild bird populations in countries of origin as well 

as in North America. U there is to be an international 

bird.trade, then the importation of live exotic birds 

should (I) be sustainable and· not pose risks of extinction for wild populations of species that are imported (several psitticines are now gone from the wild, 

their last representatives sold to parrot collectors); (2) 

not pose significant risks of transmitting exotic diseases to native species, poultry. or other birds held 

for legitimate purposes such as exhibition or scientific 

study (current quarantine procedures have not stopped 

outbreaks of exotic diseases and improved procedures 

are needed); (3) not result in significant potentials for 

the establishment of feral populations (many already 

exist in our country having been imported as pets); 

(4) be consistent with U.S. policies concerning the 

use of native species (most commercial uses of native 

birds are prohibited and those that are allowed require carefully regulated licenses, yet nonnative birds 

can be kept without permits); and (5) have regulations 

that are economically feasible, practically enforceable, simple, and effective (regulations should not 

preclude the scientific study of birds in captivity, international recovery efforts, or public exhibition for 

educational purposes). Captive breeding of exotic 

species for aviculture should (6) be seH-sustaining 

(i.e. without' requiring the continued importation o( 

wild-caught birds) and conducted humanely; and (7) 

be used as a conservation strategy only as a last resort, 

and only as part of internationally recognized and 

structured programs fully integrated with preservation and reintroduction efforts (not a panacea promoted by aviculturists as a rationalization for keeping 

exotic birds in captivity). Tht Bird Tradt Subcommitttt 

rtcommtrtds that tht importatimr of aotic I~ birds, including tht impurtatiOrt of birds rtntd in captitlity, should 

bt cortducttd ortly if it cart meet thtst .nm gmttal principles. • 

In recognition of the pivotal role of the United 

States in aHecting iniernational trade and conserv&-

tion of birds, two bills to deaeue the trade of wildcaught exotic birds were introduced to Congress in 

June. The bills were submitted by the Coopentive 

Working Group on the Bird Tnde (H.R. 2541, F. 1218) 

and by the Defenders of Wildlife (H.R. 2.540, F. 1219). 

The proposal of the Coopentive Working Group on 

the Bird Tnde was drafted by nine. organiulions including representatives of the pet trade industry and. 

aviculture, and a number of conserv&tion organiutions including the National Audubon Society, the 

International Council for Bird Preservation, and the 

World Wildlife Fund US., the coordinating organization. The proposal by the Defenders of Wildlife is 

supported by the Animal WeUare Institute, the Humane Sodeiy, the Sierra Oub, and a variety of other 

conservation groups. 

Both bills call for partial bans that would phase out 

the. pet tnde of wild-aught birds after varying lengths 

of time, but both bills allow the importation of captiv<'-bred and ranched birds for commercial activities 

and continue the importation of wild-aught birds by 

permit for commercial aviculture. Neither bill specifically addresses quarantine regulations, the problems of establishment of feral populations, nor ethical 

inconsistencies with US. policies concerning the use 

of native species. Both bills exclude dead birds (specimens) imported for scientific purposes from regulations and permit live birds to be imported for scientific study. 

Principal differences between the two proposals 

concern the immediacy of the phase-out (five years 

for the Working Group and one year for Defenders), 

the limits for the import of wild-caught birds for captive breeding (not addressed in the Working Group 

proposal vs. limited in the Defenders proposal), and 

the amount of detailed regulations governing each 

activity (large in the Working Group proposal and 

scant in the Defenders proposal). Both proposals represent positions that proponents feel have a chance 

of being enacted into law. Both proposals could result 

in a decrease in the number of exotic birds imported 

into the United. States, but still provide avenues for 

many birds to be imported depending upon the nature of regulations and degree of enforcement. 

The subcommittee supports the passage of. legislation to c:Urb the importation of live exotic wildcaught birds. The organizations that have crafted the 

two bills being considered by Congress should be 

commended. Unfortuniltely, neither bill explicitly 

deals with aU of the principles that we believe are 

necessary to guide any trade in live exotic birds. The 

enactment of one of these bills could repi:esent a positive step towards the conso:F"ation of biological diversity. But becaUSP. these bills are incomplete, even 

if one is paoaed, we feel that additional legislation 

will be necessary to.·solve the bird trade problem. 

The Bird Trade Subcommittee feels·it is important 

to state an optimal solution to the bird trade problem 

from the standpoint of conservmg wild populations 

of birds, recognizing that this position 11\ay present 

political difficulties in enactment. Tht Bird Tradt Subcmnmitttt rtamt~ • 1110tldtmum 011 tht imporlatiort of 

wild-c1111ght birds to tht Urtittd Statt$ for a fixtd ptriod. 

The two bills before Congress would both enact a 

partial montorium, but even after the period of phaseout was complet~ both bills would still allow birds 

to be imported for ;aviculture ud private collections 

including thre;atened ud declining species. We recommend a moratorium because it is the most sensible 

stance in terms of its potentials for immediately re-
88 

984 Cmnmtnl4ry [Auk, Vol. 108 

during the detrimental effects of the trade in exotic 

live birds on wild populations, its simplicity and ef· 

iectiveness of regulations,· its ethical consistency in 

treatment of native and foreign wildlife, and its cost 

effectiveness. During a moratorium, e:q>erimental 

programs of captive breeding and ranching could be 

carried out in eelected exporting countries to find 

solutions to the problems of disease control, illegal 

laundering of birds, and other associated problems. 

In our view, a moratorium would be held open for 

limited importations of birds as part of internationally recognized ocientifi_c studies of birds in captivity, 

reconry efforts, or publif t!Xhibitions for educational 

purposes. 

Concerr ~d citizens and readers of Tht Auk can urge 

their elected representatives to support the enactment 

of an exotic bird trade act and to strengthen the proposed legislation by strengthening quarantine regulations and enforcement requirements, and by decreasing the number of avenues for birds to be legally 

imported under these regulations. -

BEJSSINGER, S. R., & E. H. Buomt. 1991. Sustainable 

harvesting of parrots for conservation. In New 

World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology (S. R. Beissinger and N. F. R. Snyder, Eds.). Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. In press. 

CoLLAJt, N. )., &A. T. jUNIPER. 1991. Dimensions and 

causes of the parrot crisis. ln New World panots 

in crisis: solutions from conservation biology (S. 

R. Beissinger and N. F. R. Snyder, Eds.). Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press. In 

press. 

lNSKIPP, T. 1990. Numbers and value ot'wild birds 

in trade. Paper presented at the XX World Conference of the International Council for Bird 

Preservation, Hamilton, New Zealand . . · 

--, S. BROAD, & R. LUXNOOIIE. 1988. Significant 

trade in wildlife: a review of selected species in 

CITES Ap~ndix D. Vol. 3: birds. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom, World Conservation Union 

(IUCN). 

)AMES, F. C. 1991. A round table discussion of bird 

trade problems and solutions. Jn New World parrots in crisis: solutions fro111,conservation biology 

(S. R. Bei.ssinger and N. F. R. Snyder, Eds.). Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution tress. In 

press. 

L.u, A., & D. MELVILLE. 1990. Biological and economic implications of the bird's nest trade in 

Hong Kong. Paper presented at the XX World 

Conference of the International Council for Bird 

Preservation, Hamilton, New Zealand. 

MULLIKEN, T., & ). B. THOMSEN. 1990. U.S. bird trade: 

· the controversy continues although imports decline. TRAFFIC(USA) 10(3): 1-13. 

Nn.ssoN, G. 1989. ImportationofbirdSintolhe United States in 1985. Washington, D.C., Animal Welfare Institute. 

---. 1990. Importation of-birds into the United 

States in 1986-1988. Washington, D.C., Animal 

Welfare Institute. 

THOMsEN, J. B., & T. A. MULUKEN. 1991. Trade in 

Neotropical psittacines and ito conservation implications. Jn New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation bio logy (S. R. Beissinger 

and N. F. R. Snyder, Eds.). Washington. D.C., 

Smithsonian Institution Press. In press. 

Acctpltd 20 Junt 1991. 
89 

A550CJ.&.TlON 

~ 

FOR PAUDT CONSERVATION 

PMA A ct:JH98YAC}JJ OE 1"51TACIDE05 

A50CIACICN PMA LA CON5ERVACION DE 1"51TACID05 

ASSOCIATION FOR PARROT CONSERVATION 

POSIDON STATEMENT 

CAPTIVE BREEDING AS A RECOVERY MEASURE 

For further infonnation about the Association for Parrot Consetvation. please call (301) 897-

3456 or write to APC, 13 East Rosemont Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22301(USA) 
90 

ASSOCIATION FOR PARR<Jf CONSERVATION 

POSmON STATEMENT 

CAPTIVE BREEDING AS A RECOVERY MEASURE 

written by 

Dr. Noel Snyder, Director, Thick-billed Parrot Program, Wildlife Preservation Trust International, 

Ponal, Arizona 

Captive breeding has served a crucial function in the recovery of a number of species of 

critically endangered wildlife, and has a role to play in the recovery of certain parrots. However, 

the Association for Parrot Conservation (APC) also recognizes that there are significant 

limitations to this technique when it is used as a recovery measure (i.e., birds are bred for 

ultimate release to the wild). In general, APC recommends it only as a shan-term technique 

when other preferable conservation options are not immediately available. Employed properly 

in recovery programs, captive breeding can provide a critical boost for some severely threatened 

populations. Employed improperly, it can lead to greatly increased recovery costs and risks 

rather than benefits. It is imponant, therefore, to identify when it should or should not be used 

as a recovery measure. 

APC also recognizes that captive breeding has other values that are less directly related 

to species recovery, such as providing birds for exhibit, conservation education (especially to help 

convince the public of needs for habitat preservation), and fund-raising purposes. Captive 

populations can also provide an imponant resource for fundamental biological research and 

research training that cannot be accomplished with wild individuals. The precautions that should 

be observed in captive breeding for recovery purposes are different from those that are 

appropriate for captive breeding for these other purposes. In this position statement, APC 

addresses the advantages, disadvantages, and precautions that relate to captive breeding for 

recovery (reintroduction) purposes, without implying that this is the only sphere in which captive 

breeding plays a role in conservation. 

Advantages of Captive Breeding in Species Recovery Programs 

When captive breeding is properly integrated into a species recovery program it can offer 

a number of advantages. Most imponantly, it can serve as a safety net for species whose wild 

populations face a high probability of extinction. With species that breed readily in captivity, 

it is sometimes possible to greatly increase the rate of reproduction through techniques such as 

multiple-clutching, and speed the recovery of wild populations through releases of captive-bred 

birds. Potentially, such releases can serve a number of purposes such as increasing extant 

populations, correcting sex-ratio imbalances, reestablishing extirpated populations and/or 

establishing new populations in natural or altered habitats. If conducted properly, captive 

breeding can sometimes make it possible to minimize losses of genetic diversity from critically 

threatened populations and minimize chances of catastrophic Joss of populations. 

Captive populations have an imponant role to play in species recovery when pressures 

on wild populations are truly overwhelming in the s6oit term and there is no way to sustain wild 

l 
91 

populations. In such cases, captive bm:ding can provide a sbon-term reprieve, buying time for 

preparation of reintroduction sites that may permit n:establishment of wild population; .. 

Limilalioos or Captift Bnedioc 

The potentials of captive bm:ding for species RX:Overy are limited by a number of 

imponant considerations: 

(1) Difficulties in breeding certain species. Most psiuacines have been bred in 

captivity, but sustained and quantitatively adequate captive production has remained an elusive 

goal for many species (see Oubb 1992). For Olbcrs, satisfactory production has been attained 

only by hand-rearing. Unfortunately, band-maed birds can generally be expected to be of lesser 

value than parent-reared birds for reintrodnction purposes. and in some cases, they may be 

impossible to reestablish in true wild mviroDments. 

(2) Difficulties in reintroducing many species to the wild. Reintroduction programs for 

vertebrates to date have been relatively unstXX:esSfnl when limited to captive-bred stock --

averaging II - 38% successful in recent major surveys by Beck et. al. (1994) and Griffith et. 

al. (1989). Reintroductions of captive-bred parrocs may often be expected to face problems with 

behavioral deficiencies resulting from a large component of learning in parrot behavioral 

repertoires and a difficulty in producing adequately normal behavior in captive environments. 

Unless captive-bred individuals are reintroduced by fostrring to wild pairs or are released in 

predator-free or predator-deficient enviroiiiiX:IdS, many reintrnductions may fail because of 

inadequate flocking behavior and poor habitat RX:Ognilion abililies (see Snyder et al. 1994). The 

bottleneck in using captive bm:ding sua:essfuiiy in species RX:Overy often lies in problems in 

reintroduction rather than in captive bm:ding icsclf. 

(3) High costs in facilities and personnel The COSIS of properly-run captive- bm:ding 

programs, including isolated, weU-sited facilities, comprdlensive disease control. and the 

manpower needed to maillllain and can: for lbe apcive populations are substantial, sometimes 

running on the order of a half million dollars per yar. Over the time necdc:d for conservation 

programs, such costs can sometimes fm euec:d diose: of olher potential conservation methods. 

Techniques such as habitat presanlion (wbich automatically benefits far more species than the 

single parrot species under considc:ralion) are often far JJJDR: economicaL On the basis of costs 

vs. benefits, captive-breeding is COIDDOIIIy an IIIJdesirable option. 

(4) Disease risks. Panots are susceptible to ova- 30 known pathogens and disease 

syndromes, many of which are widespread in captive collections and some of which cannot be 

reliably detected in carrier birds by prescady IIVIilablc 11es1s or SWJdard quarantine procedures. 

Of course, diseases also occur in wild popalalioas. llmn:va", wild popuJations are relatively well 

adapted to deal with indigenous diseases lbrough oaUDal immuDilies, and lbe greatest risks occur 

when species are exposed to novel, cxocic diseul:s. Sncb exposure risks are especially great 

whenever birds are transpOrted or held in large lllllllhers in mnllispccies environments. Unless 

captive breeding is condUC11c:d ODder c:ard'ully COIIIrOIIed CODditions, the risks of disease to 

captive, reintroduced, and wild populalions are snhscantial Ideally, to minimize these risks. 

captive breeding of endangered panots for m:ow:ry purposes should occur in: 

a) closed, single-species facilities. 

b) facilities within the oaUDal DDF of die lpCCies. 

c) facilities in which Slllff do DOl have c:oatact with other species of wildlife, either 

professionally or avocationally. 

d) facilities that are sited u much u possible in areas he from arthropod disease vectors 
92 

and feral populations of exotic birds. 

e) facilities where established protocols include rigorous disease prevention me$odologies, such as scru!Hiowns of personnel entering the facilities, and regular health 

examinations of captive stock. 

Further, captive-breeding stocks for recovery of endangered parrots should generally be 

assembled directly from the wild populations or from stocks held in closed single-species 

facilities with good records of disease prevention, and should not be fonned from stocks that 

have been held in open multispecies facilities. 

Finally, APC emphasizes the imponance of state-of-the-art disease screening for all birds 

used in captive-breeding for recovery purposes, even though such screening cannot be expected 

to reveal the presence of all diseases of importance. 

Observing these standalds is often expensive but should be recognized as one of the 

inherent costs of comprehensive captive breeding conducted for recovery purposes. The 

consequences of not observing such precautions include enhanced risks of permanent 

establishment of new disease stress factors in already threatened wild populations and, in some 

cases, extinction or near-extinction of wild populations (see Jacobson 1993; Woodford and 

Rossiter 1994). 

(5) Managing genetic and behavioral changes. When captive populations are established 

for conservation and recovery pwposes. the preservation of extant genetic variation and speciestypical behavior assume paramount importance. Over the past decade, considerable attention has 

been given to the preservation of genetic diversity in small populations; much less attention has 

been given to the preservation of species-typical behavioral traits. Modem, conservation-oriented 

breeding programs must attempt to ameliorate the genetic effects of inbreeding, drift, and 

adaptation to the captive environment through the deliberate and careful control of reproduction, 

population size, population demography (Foose and Ballou 1988, Lacy 1987, Allendorf 1993). 

This is a difficult task, however, given (1) the practical limitations of population size and 

controlling teproduction; (2) the dynamic nature of evolutionary forces in small populations; (3) 

the types of genetic variation to be maintained; and (4) the uncertain nature of selection in the 

captive environment (see Lande 1988, Simberloff 1988). In low-fecundity taxa, like parrots, 

careful pedigree breeding and equalizing progeny number can minimize genetic drift and 

adaptation to captivity (Allendorf 1993). It should be noted. however, the some breeding 

programs for endangered parrots have failed to secure consistent reproduction or equalize progeny 

numbers even after years of effort 

Behavioral traits, especially those that are learned or culturally transmitted, are prone to 

rapid loss in captivity. The behavioral repertoires of many parrot species seem to include learned 

components, and problems with behavioral deficiencies have already been encountered in 

attempts to reintroduce captive-bred individuals of several species to the wild (see Wiley et al., 

1992, Snyder et al., 1994). Because the non-genetic transmission of information across 

generations appears to be essential for the survival of wild populations of some highly social 

species such as parrots (foft 1994), breeding programs for reintroduction must focus careful 

attention on behavioral management in the captive environment. Clearly, this aspect of captive 

management deserves much more scientific investigation than it has received, and will have to 

be completed on a species-by-species basis. 

(6) Problems in ensuring continuity of programs. Captive breeding represents a 

relatively unstable and input-intensive approach to conservation that is difficult to sustain over 

the lengths of time needed for recovery of endangered species. Cllanges in personnel and 

institutional priorities can frequently leave long-term programs without adequate suppon and 

3 
93 

expertise. Likewise, overall changes in economic health of organizations can lead to mid-stream 

abandonment of programs. Of course, problems with continuity are not unique to ·captive 

breeding programs, and can affect complex in situ conservation efforts as well. 

(7) Preemption of other. better techniques. Another significant limitations of captive 

breeding is that is can preempt attention and resources from better, long-term conservation 

solutions. The existence of a captive population can give the impression that the species is 

"safe" and allow agencies to ignore long-term solutions that are often more difficult politically, 

though much more effective and beneficial biologically. 

When is Captive Breeding Advantageous in Species Recovery? 

Because of the risks and limitations of the technique, APC believes that captive breeding 

should be invoked as a species recovery approach under carefully defined circumstances. The 

decision to start captive breeding for this purpose should be made only on a case-by-case basis 

and only following a comprehensive evaluation of conservation alternatives at the field level. 

It should not be made simply because some individuals are already in captivity and numbers of 

the species seem relatively low. Further, it should not be made when resources to conduct 

captive breeding comprehensively and humanely are unavailable. 

In general, captive breeding can be justified as a desirable conservation approach when 

(1) species are so rapidly approaching extinction that they cannot be expected to survive without 

intensive intervention of some son and either effective conservation alternatives are clearly 

unavailable in the shon term or sufficient time to investigate alternatives does not exist. or (2) 

all or nearly all individuals of a species are already in captivity and it is deemed worthwhile to 

attempt to reestablishment of the wild populations, or (3) other conditions prevail that make 

captive breeding and reintroduction absolutely essential for preservation of the species in the 

wild. 

When captive breeding should begin for species in rapid decline is often a point of 

vigorous controversy. Oearly, waiting too long before starting will risk genetic deterioration and 

potential failure in developing adequate husbandry techniques, especially if technology for captive 

breeding of the species or closely related species has not previously been researched. However, 

starting too soon can represent unnecessary expense, accentuate genetic and behavioral 

management problems, and focus resources in unproductive directions, preempting other 

approaches that can offer potentials for more stable, long-term benefits. Population trends are 

often far more important than absolute numbers in making decisions as to whether and when 

captive breeding is warranted. Steeply declining species are cause for special concern, and care 

needs to be taken not to wait too long in establishing captive populations if effective alternatives 

are unavailable. In making such decisions, it is important to recognize the difference between 

ephemeral shon-term population fluctuations and pervasive long-term population trends. 

APC does not endorse captive breeding programs for species recovery that are 

independent of efforts to develop alternative, long-term conservation solutions for wild 

populations. In general, APC urges that wild populations be sustained at the time captive 

populations are established so that research into limiting factors can take place and problems in 

the wild can be identified and corrected, and so that reintroductions of captives to the wild can 

enjoy the advantages of linkage with wild populations. 

Finally, APC believes that captive breeding efforts for species recovery should proceed 

only when endorsed by the governments of the countries involved and should observe the 

precautions specified in the preceding sections. 

4 
94 

Literature cited: 

Allendorf, F.W. 1993. Delay of adaptation to captive breeding by equalizing family size. 

Conservation Biology 7:416-419. · 

Beck, B.B., Rapaport, L.G., Price, M.S., and A. Wilson. 1994. Reintroduction of captive-born 

animals. Pp. 265-284 in Creative Conservation: interactive management of wild and 

captive animals (Proceedings of the sixth World Conference on Breeding Endangered 

Species) (P.J.S. Olney, G.Mace, and A.T.C. Feistner, eds.), Chapman and Hall, London. 

Clubb, S.L. 1992. The role of private aviculture in the conservation of New World psittacines. 

Pp. 117-130 in New World Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology 

(S.R.Beissinger and N.F.RSnyder, eds.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Griffith, B., Scott, J.M., Carpenter, J.W., and C.Reed. 1989. Translocation as a species 

conservation tool: status and strategy. Science 245:4770480. 

Jacobson, E.R 1993. Implications of infectious diseases for captive propagation and introduction 

programs of threatened/endangered reptiles. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 

24:245-255. 

Snyder, N.F.R., Koenig, S., Koschrnann, J., Snyder, H.A., and T.B. Johnson. 1994. Thick-billed 

parrot releases in Arizona Condor 96:845-862. 

Woodford, M.H., and P.B. Rossiter. 1994. Disease risks associated with wildlife translocation 

projects. Pp. 178-200 in Creative Conservation: interactive management of wild and 

captive animals (Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Breeding Endangered 

Species) (P.J.S. Oleny, G. Mace, and A.T.C. Feistner, eds.), Chapman and Hall, London. 

5 
95 

ASSOCI.-' TION FOR PAitlWT CONSERVATION 

ASSOC~O rARA A CON~RVAcAo DE 1"51TACIDEOS 

ASOCIACICN PARA LA CON5ERVACJaN DE 1'51TACID05 

ASSOCIATION FOR PARROT CONSERVATION 

POSffiON STATEMENT 

SUSTAINABLE USE AND TRADE OF BIRDS 

For fwther information about the Association for Parrot Conservation. please call (301) 897-

3456 or write to APC. 13 East Rosemont Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22301(USA) 
96 

ASSOCIATION FOR PARROT CONSERVATION 

POSmON STATEMENT 

SUSTAINABLE USE AND TRADE OF BIRDS 

written by 

Dr. Steven R Beissinger, Associate Professor of Ecology & Conservation Biology, School of 

Forestry & Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 

PURPOSE 

The harvest of birds from the wild for national and international trade is an important 

cause of population declines for many species. International and national regulations have been 

unable to control this multi-million dollar trade, which increasingly threatens the existence of 

wild bird populations and entire species. The situation has reached a crisis proportion for many 

species and an immediate change in the management of international trade is needed. Yet harvest 

for trade. if done properly, has the potential to be a source of revenue for local peoples and 

nations, and could lead to habitat conservation. In this document, the Association for Parrot 

Conservation (APC) outlines why the international trade in birds must be temporary halted and 

lays the biological foundation for achieving a trade in wild birds that does not threaten wild 

populations, is sustainable, and can lead to conservation of wild birds and their habitats. 

DIMENSIONS OF THE PROBLEM 

In recent years, international and national (internal or nonexport) trade in birds for pets 

and aviculture has grown greatly. Estimates of the current annual magnitude of the international 

trade in live birds range from two to five million individuals. Accurate data on the scale of 

internal trade in birds are not available, although this trade is also thought to be substantial in 

many countries. Finches from Africa and parrots from around the world compose the bulk of 

the individuals traded. 

Parrots represent the largest monetary share of commerce. The United States has 

accounted for 47% of all parrots sold internationally, and perhaps 80% of the trade in Neotropical 

parrots, followed by the European Economic Community and Japan. Approximately 1.8 million 

Neotropical psittacines, nearly all captured from the wild, were legally exported for trade from 

1982 to 1988. The actual numbers taken from the wild for commercial activities were probably 

several times as large, when internal trade, illegal export (e.g., 150,000 parrots per year are 

smuggled through Mexico), and high mortality rates of birds harvested from the wild (e.g., 60% 

may die in Mexico before exportation) are considered. The retail monetary value of the 1.8 

million parrots legally exported during this period has been estimated at $1.6 billion. 

This multi-million dollar trade increasingly threatens the existence of wild bird 

populations and even entire species. Although nearly all exporting countries are members of the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangt:red Flora and Fauna (OTES), and many exporting 
97 

countries have adopted trade regulations, the domestic and international laws which are supposed 

to ensure that trapping for trade does not result in species declines have been largely ineffective. 

Harvest quotas have been adopted in many countries, but they are not based on scientific data 

and there have been no adequate biological studies 10 determine what levels of harvest would be 

sustainable. 

Principle problems from the trade of birds have been seen with parrots, which as a group 

are unable to sustain much pressure on wild populations. At least 42 of approximately 140 

species of Neotropical parrots are currently at risk of extinction. For 22 of these species, trade 

is a major cause of endangerment Examples of parrots now critically threatened by trade include 

the Spix's Macaw (Cyanopsina spixil), the Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynclws hyacinthinu.s), the 

Tucuman Amazon (Amazona tucumana), the Red-tailed Amazon (A. brasiliensis), and the Redcrowned Amazon (A. viridigenalis). Together, trade and habitat destruction now clearly represent 

the two major conservation problems afflicting parrots and many kinds of birds worldwide. 

Little is known about how trade is affecting most nonendangered species in part because 

there are no species for which quotas have been set based on scientific information. However, 

if the Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva) is any indication, trade is probably having a 

strong effect even on many common species. Over 45,000 Blue-fronted Amazons were exported 

from Argentina from 1982 10 1986. It is inconceivable that this species can continue 10 sustain 

such harvest levels, as evidenced by its disappearance from many areas of its range. Trade may 

be as large a threat to nonendangered psittacines as habitat destruction, because many parrots are 

habitat generalists. This is exemplified by the large number of parrot species that have been 

introduced, as a result of the pet trade, and become established in urban habitats around the 

world. In addition, the harvest of nestlings of hole-nesting species often involves destruction of 

nest trees, posing a further stress on wild populations limited by nest site availability. 

Captive breeding is the major sonrce of individuals in trade for only a relatively few bird 

species-- Budgerigars (Meiopsinacus undulatus), Cockatiels (Nyrnphicus hollandicus), Canaries 

(Serinu.s canaria), Zebra and Bengalese Finches (..tmandava subflava and Lonclwra domestica), 

most Agapomis lovebirds, several species of grass parrots (Neophema sp.) and rosellas 

(PIIllycercu.r sp.). and several Australian finches (e.g., Ch/oebia gouldiae, Poephila cincta, 

Poephila acuticauda). For most other birds, essentially all individuals in trade come directly 

from wild sources, either trapped as free-flying adults or taken as nestlings. 

Despite the obvious threats to wild populations of many species posed by trade as it is 

currently conducted, little has been done by the international community to decrease the number 

of birds being removed from the wild. One notable exception is recent legislation enacted by 

the United States. The Exotic Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 prohibits the importation of 

birds that are listed on CITES appendices unless they originated from licensed captive-breeding 

facilities or sustainable-harvesting programs. In the first year since this legislation went into 

effect, the number of parrots and the total number of wild birds legally imported into the United 

States declined greatly, although exact figures are not yet available. It is not known, however, 

whether the number of birds illegally imported has increased. 

2 
98 

A FIVE YEAR MORATORfiJM ON TilE TRADE OF UVE BIRDS IS NEEDED 

On the basis of the siruation summarizc:d above, APC believes that the hazvest ·of birds 

for national and international trade is not currently being conducted in a sustainable manner. 

Because the exploitation of live birds and their shipment around the world has had severe 

impacts on many wild populations in countries of origin, APC believes that there is no rational 

choice but to halt or greatly decrease the international and national trade in parrots and other 

birds until evidence can be presented that such trade in any species can be constituted in a 

sustainable manner. If trade in live birds is to continue, trade practices must be changed, and 

the removal of birds from the wild must be dramatically decreased. It is unlikely that the trade 

can be made sustainable in the face of the great pressure exerted by the current climate of 

unsustainable use. Under such conditions, most attempts at sustainable hazvesting are likely to 

fail. 

APC recommends a moratorium on the international trade of wild-caught birds for a five 

year period. A moratorium is recommended because it is the most sensible stance in terms of 

its potentials for immediately reducing the detrimental effects of the trade on wild populations, 

its simplicity and effectiveness of regulations, and its cost effectiveness. At the end of the 

moratorium, trade could be reopened for selected species when it can be shown that hazvesting 

is sustainable. Obtaining the biological and sociological data to conduct a sustainable trade will 

require Jar ge investments of time and money, but trade should not have been allowed in the first 

place without this information. 

A five year moratorium would be long enough to permit overexploited bird populations 

to begin to recover and would allow time for important conservation programs to be enacted. 

An international campaign could be begun to pass legislation like the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act in the European Economic Community, Japan, and other countries. Education programs 

about the implications of keeping parrots and other birds as pets could be implemented to reduce 

the demand for wild birds both in importing and exporting countries. Research programs to 

document the status, basic natural history, and population dynamics of exploited species could 

be initiated. Experimental ranching programs could be run in selected exporting countries to find 

solutions to poaching, illegal laundering of birds, and other associated problems. In our view, 

a moratorium would be held open for limited importations of birds as part of internationally 

recognized scientific studies of birds in captivity, recovery efforts, or public exhibitions for 

educational purposes. A moratorium for five years would signal that business can not continue 

as usual, but that business could continue if the trade could be made sustainable. It would 

provide impetus to the users of birds, the hazvestcrs and importers, to take the steps needed to 

make a trade in birds sustainable, which would not be a trivial undertaking. 

APC realizes that the issues relating to the governance of the international and national 

trade are complex, and that biological, political, social, and economic factors each affect the 

conditions under which trade has been or should be implemented. But because a moratorium or 

a trade ban alone is unlikely to slow the high rate of habitat destruction that threatens parrots and 

other forms of biological diversity, policy should be enacted in such a way that it will encourage 

future hazvesting schemes if they can be demonstrated to be truly sustainable. 

3 
99 

In the remainder of this policy statement, APC presents general principles that should 

guide the harvest and trade of birds, discusses the potential benefits and difficulties of enacting 

sustainable use of birds, and presents a vision of bow the trade could be re-created for both 

conunercial and conservation pmposes. 

PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING THE SUSTAINABLE HARVEST AND TRADE OF BIRDS 

APC strongly advocates the use of seven general principles developed by The American 

Ornithologists' Union to guide trade in birds. The seven principles focus primarily on the 

implications for conserving wild bird populations in the countries of origin as well as in 

importing countries. APC's approach to trade and sustainable use of parrots is based on these 

principles: 

1. The harvest and imponation of live birds should bt sustainable, and should not pose risks 

for wild populations of species that are harvested. There is no justification for commercial 

endeavors to result in the extinction in the wild of a species, as has been the case for several 

parrots as the trade is currently practiced. Although CITES provides some protection for a small 

set of species listed in its Appendix I, even some of these have been imported in significant 

numbers relative to wild population sizes (e.g., the Hyacinth Macaw). H trade in wild birds is 

to continue, it must be done on a sustainable basis. In other words, trade must be implemented 

in such a way that it does not pose threats to wild populations. Expon quotas for some countries 

need to be lowered drastically. hnportant biological information is needed to determine what 

levels of harvest would be sustainable. This information has not been gathered for any species 

in the trade. Biological data suggest that there is a potential to harvest some parrots in a 

sustainable manner through the use of nest boxes to increase productivity, although no "ranching" 

projects with free-flying birds have been attempted to date. Because most parrots have low 

reproductive potential and long life spans, they are susceptible to overharvesting and conservative 

approaches to harvesting should be used. These include harvesting only nestlings and not adults, 

and harvesting primarily nestlings that are produced in excess of natural productivity as a result 

of management programs. Maximizing nestling harvest levels requires managing to maximize 

the number of pairs of birds nesting, which in theory would result in robust populations close to 

the carrying capacity of the environment However, careful evaluations of the biological, social 

and economic problems of ranching programs must be conducted before such programs are 

encouraged or discouraged. Finally, there is no reason that any of the llOO bird species listed 

by IUCN as threatened with extinction should be traded for commercial purposes. 

2. The harvest and imponation of live birds should not pose significant risks of disease 

transmission to native species. poultry, or other birds held for legitimate purposes such as 

exhibition or scientific study. Quarantine regulations around the world are, for the most part, 

unlikely to stop the importation of diseases that potentially threaten native species and poultry. 

For example, all birds imported to the United States are held for 30 days of USDA-regulated 

quarantine and tested only for Exotic Newcastle DL<ea.Se (VVND). This period is too brief to 

allow the detection of other slow acting pathogens, many of which have recently been imported 

into collections of captive birds and potentially couid ~ transferred to native species. 

Difficulties with this one disease aionc, which caused a ma.::sive loss to the U.S. poultty industry 

in 1972 and continues to strike pcriod.ica.Uy since then, sugge~ts that enorm.ous econon:Jc Icss ~ 
100 

may occur if !he worldwide shipments of birds continues and current quarantine regulations are 

not changed. Quarantine procedures must include much longer quarantine periods an~ testing 

for many more diseases. The massive eJltinctions of native Hawaiian birds, caused in' part by 

diseases to which many species had no prior exposure, exemplify !he potentials of exotic diseases 

to have tragic consequences. 

3. Tlu importation of live birds should not result in significant potentUJls for the establishment 

of feral populations. U ocootrolled experiments in introductions of exotic bird species are already 

underway around lhe world as a ~ult of continued international trade. Large nwnbc:rs of exotic 

birds establishing lhemselves, so far mostly in urban environments but perhaps eventually 

spreading to natural ecosystemS. may cause native populations to decline or could become serious 

pests. Iotematiooal trade should be prohibited for species wilh good colonizing abilities that are 

proven pests, like !he Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus). 

4. The harvest, exponation, and importation of live birds should be consistent with national 

policies concerning the use of native species. To be ethically consistent, !he trade in live birds 

should be regulated by nations in !he same manner chat !hey regulate commercial uses of native 

wildlife. Some exporting countries have no clear set of Jaws for !he use of native wildlife. 

Others choose to regulate the use of valuable species such as parrots as pest species so !hey can 

set very high harvest quotas, even !hough !hey prohibit commercial use of less valuable species. 

For importing countries, anolher kind of dilemma exists. Most prohibit commercial uses of 

native bird species. Legal fonns of utilization of wild birds. for example sport hunting and 

falconry, are usually carefully regulated, require licenses, and require chat wild populations of 

game birds or raptors be managed in a sustainable manner. Exotic birds have been largely 

exempt from such regulations until !he passage in !he U.S. of !he Wild Bird Conservation Act 

of 1992. So allhough it is illegal to market or hold native bird species, except under permit, it 

is quite legal to practice these same activities wilh most nonnative birds without a permit. Both 

situations pose unfortunate ethical inconsistencies in !he treatment of wildlife species. 

S. The trade of live birds should be governed by regulations that are economically feasible, 

practically enforceable, simple, and effective. Regulations should not preclude scientific studies 

of birds in captivity, international recovery effons. or public exhibitions for educational purposes. 

Complicated regulations imply complicated bureaucracies and significant expense, and are 

susceptible to failure because of underfunding and difficulties in addressing complexities. 

Simplicity in regulations is an important goal. Enforcing trade regulations chat allow harvest and 

imoortation of wild-caught birds would require lhe development of adequate marking systems to 

detect !he laundering of illegal birds lhrough captive breeding or ranching programs, and to detect 

smuggled birds. Presently no marking system is completely reliable. More resources must be 

invested in enforcing any legislation, including stronger fines and sentences for convicted 

smugglers, if legislation is to effectively deter current widespread smuggling. Practically 

enforceable harvest regulations are necessary as the cornerstone of any system of sustainable use. 

6. Captive breeding of exotic species for aviculture should be self-sustaining (i.e., without 

requiring the continued imponation of wild-caught birds) and be conducted humanely. The 

importation of wild birds for commercial aviculture had been fueled in pan because it was often 

less expensive for aviculturists to import adult wild-<:aught birds than to buy captive-reared birds. 

A viculrurists do not need continued access to wild birds for captive breeding stock because all 

s 
101 

species of conunercial importance are already represented in sufficient nwnbers in captivity to 

constitute a viable gene pool under active, cooperative management (30 10 50 birds per Species). 

Species with fewer individuals in captivity are obviously not of commercial importance. Instead 

of supplementing captive birds with wild imports, private aviculturists must begin 10 adjust their 

practices toward the goal of self-sustaining captive populations, including better coordination of 

studbooks and the development of cooperative programs 10 maintain genetically viable captive 

gene pools. Humane care of captive birds, from the transporting and holding of birds in expon 

and impon centers (e.g., quarantine facilities) to the housing of birds in commercial breeding 

facilities, must be a priority. 

7. Captive breeding of exotic birds as a conservation strategy should be pursued only as a last 

reson, and onl.v as pan of inJernationaily recognized and structured programs. The promotion 

of captive breeding as conservation by aviculturists is sometimes a rationalization for keeping 

exotic birds in captivity in private collections. Captive breeding for conservation should be fully 

integrated with preservation and reintroduction efforts, conducted within the native range of the 

species whenever possible, and internationally coordinated. Aviculturists committed to 

conservation could play a significant role in future reintroduction programs if adequate control 

over disease threats can be achieved, and the ownership and control of birds is given up to a 

central authority. However, many problems are associated with the use of captive breeding for 

conservation, as detailed in the APC position paper on this topic, so this technique should be 

used with great discretion. 

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF TRADE ARE GREAT BUT DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE 

If it is implemented properly and conservatively, sustainable harvesting may provide 

advantages for conservationists, aviculturists, the pet industry, and local peoples. Conservationists could gain by having healthy populations of wild parrots, and by transmitting economic value 

to habitats to help conserve them in their natural states. This would benefit a broad array of 

plant and animal species besides parrots. For example, if parrots can be sustainably harvested 

from tropical rain forests, this would provide another commodity which might help to make 

extractive reserves more economically valuable than forest land cleared for timber harvest or 

cattle production. Sustained harvesting of many species of parrots will require that substantial 

areas of land be maintained as mature forest Aviculturists could purchase new genetic stock for 

their breeding programs from birds harvested sustainably, although cooperative management 

programs could accomplish the same thing for nearly all species currently in captivity. The pet 

industry would have a steady but small inflow of legally imponed birds already conditioned to 

captivity. Finally, the profits from these programs could be directed to the local people in need 

of ways to suppon themselves, and the economy of nations that are trying to develop. 

Realizing the benefits of trade requires a degree of control over harvesting that is difficult 

and expensive to achieve. Solving the biological problems associated with sustained harvest of 

birds may be easier than solving some of the social and political problems. Particular problems 

for sustainable harvesting programs are posed by the illegal laundering of birds by personnel in 

these programs, poaching of birds by people outside of these program, the development of 

reliable marking systems to identify legal birds, and the temptation to overharvest to make more 

profit Without strong controls over harvesting programs that are enforced, attempts at sustained 

harvesting could increase conservation problems rather than solve them. 

6 
102 

RE-CREATING A BIRD TRADE 1HA T CONSERVES SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS 

If there is to be a trade in parrots, it must be conducted on a sustainable basis. There is, 

however, no single definition of what constirutes sustainable use. A commonly accepted 

biological basis for sustainable use of rmewal n:sources is that harvest levels must not exceed 

the number of individuals needed to replenish the popnlation and shonld not have negative effects 

on other components of the ecosystem. The mill: way to determine what harvest levels are 

sustainable is to conduct detailed biological srudies of the narural history, demography, 

movements, and popnlation size and trends of the species to be harvested over a number of years. 

Quotas set by any other method will have little if any biological justification. Species with low 

numbers locally or globally an: not candidates for sustainable use, despite their high economic 

value, until their populations can be recovered. It is impossible to set valid quotas for export if 

the size of the nonexpert (internal) trade remains unknown. Thus, future studies of the degree 

of harvest for in-country markets are needed in many countries. 

Strong hopes should not be placed in sustained harvesting as a conservation strategy until 

several demonstration projects can determine the feasibility and scale of harvesting. Experimental 

programs of sustained harvesting must be run to find solutions to the problems of illegal 

laundering of birds. poaching. reliable marking systems, and overharvesting. Serious funds will 

need to be allocated to enforce harvest and trade n:gnlations in both exporting and importing 

countries. Enforcement of regulations must occur before exploiters will take harvest regnlations 

seriously. Harvesting is unlikely to be sustainable unless all of the conditions discussed above 

can be satisfied. 

National and international regulation of harvest and trade must shift from the use of 

national quotas to local harvest quocas besed on scientific management plans. Using national 

quotas to regulate harvests does not tie harvest levels into local conditions and provides no 

impetus for ecosystem conservation. Harvesting of parrots is often done for extra income by 

campesinos, who do not own the land, or poachers. The landowners (public or private) are 

missing actors in the parrot trade and have no motivation for preserving wildlife as a source of 

income. The process leads to the "tragedy of the commons"- parrots an: overexploited because 

they are viewed as nobody's property and their use is not locally n:gulated. The "middlemen", 

buyers and importers who have profiled most from the bird trade, do not make investments to 

ensure the sustainability of the parrot trade in the n:gion. Instead, they behave opportunistically 

and move to less exploited areas, or shift to other species according to availability and 

international prices. Thus, using national quotas to n:gulate harvests benefits most those 

economic interests that lie outside of the n:gion and that lack any commitment to sustaining the 

birds or their habitats. Instead, harvest quotas must be developed on a site-by-site basis, such 

as for a particular ranch or managc:meut area. Local harvest quotas would directly connect 

harvest levels to local parrot population changes and babitat conditions. 

Two important components of the international trade also need to be improved -

quarantine testing for diseases and the treatment birds in captivity. Quarantine in most countries 

is not very effective because few diseases are monitored over a short period of time. With the 

global movement of birds in the international trade, it is only a matter of when, not if, an exotic 

disease outbreak will occur. QuarantiDe procedures should include testing for more diseases over 

7 
103 

a longer period of time. However, many birds die before they are shipped, although sun:ivorship 

during shipping has improved in recent years. Mortality must be lowered in countries of origin 

during the holding period. This can be acheived by better regulations for the care and holding 

of birds to be exponed, and by educating all involved in harvesting and holding birds. 

In conclusion, sustained harvesting can only achieve its purpose if robust bird populations 

and habitat preservation result. Sustainable harvesting of parrots and other birds cannot 

contribute to species or habitat conservation unless sound scientific information is available, 

methods to regulate harvesting and trade are developed and enforced, and a diverse set of 

sustainably-managed products are harvested simultaneously. 

ADDmONAL READING 

Beissinger, S. R., and E. H. Bucher. 1992. Can parrots be conserved through sustainable 

harvesting? BioScience 42: 164-173. 

Beissinger, S. R., N. F. R. Snyder, S. R. Derrickson, F. C. James, and S. M. Lanyon. 1991. 

International trade in live exotic birds creates a vast movement that must be halted. Auk 

108:982-984. 

Thomsen, I. B., and T. A. Mulliken. 1992. Trade in neotropical psittacines and its a:rmvali:Jt 

implications. Pages 221-239 in S. R. Beissinger and 

N. F.R.Snyder, eds.New World parrots in crisis: solutions from conservation biology. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

8 
104 

WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS 

September 28, 1995 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Represenllltives 

Testimony of Frank M. Bond, General Counsel 

North American Falconers Association 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to present 

testimony this morning. I am Frank M. Bond, and I serve as General Counsel for the North 

American Falconers Association ("NAFA "). I appear today on behalf of NAFA's President, Dr. 

Ken Felix, and its 2,600 members in the United States and throughout the world. For the most 

part, my testimony will focus on the application of the Wild Bird Conservation Act ("WBCA") 

to birds of prey, frequently referred to as raptors. 

Anyone who deals with birds of prey are subjected to the regulations promulgated under 

the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The falconry community of the United States 

in !icensed through a federal and state permitting process under 50 CFR 21.28, 21.29 and 22.24, 

and for our members, and for others who are also captive propagators, they must comply with 

the standards of 50 CFR 21.30. These regulations do not distinguish markedly among wild 

harvested and captively propagated birds. Further, with certain species of raptors the full force 

of the Endangered Species Act ("ESA ") applies, and finally for import and export of raptors, 

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species ("C.I.T.E.S. ")and its attendant 

regulations control all movement. The regulatory burden imposed by these Jaws on raptors is 

staggering. 

The stated purposes of the WBCA are to promote conservation of exotic (non-U.S.) 

species of birds by: (I) ensuring that all imports into the United States of species of exotic birds 

fmb7110731.d 
105 

Testimony of Frank M. Bond 

WBCA Oversight Hearings 

September 28, 1995 

are biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the species; (2) ensuring that imported birds 

are not subject to inhumane treatment during capture and transport; and (3) assisting 

conservation and management programs in the countries of origin. These purpose may be noble 

as they apply to some species of birds, but they do not apply to raptors, because birds of prey 

cannot be imported for "pet " purposes. U.S. citizens and organizations may only hold raptors 

for conservation, propagation, falconry, education and rehabilitation purposes. And every one 

of these purposes is regulated . 

Our recommendation to this Committee is to exempt all Falconiformes from the WBCA. 

Falconiformes should be added to that relatively small list of birds for which it was determined 

previously that the WBCA served no useful purpose. At the very least, proven captive bred 

Falconiformes should be exempted from the provisions because captive bred raptors are not part 

of any wild population. 

In support of the request for exemption of Falconiformes, the purposes of the WBCA do 

not appropriately apply for the following reasons: 

1. Raptors have been internationally imported and exported in small numbers 

for falconry purposes for thousands of years. More recently, some birds 

are imported and exported for captive propagation purposes with the goal 

of conservation and falconry . To our knowledge, there is not a single 

incident of this activity being detrimental to any species of raptor 

anywhere in the world. Frankly, evidence demonstrates that there have 

fmb711073 I.d 2 
106 

Testimony of Frank M. Bond 

WBCA Oversight Hearings 

September 28, 1995 

not been any significant increase in the import and export of raptors for 

any purpose. 

2. Raptors captured from the wild or bred in captivity for falconry purposes, 

and subsequently imported or exported, are captured and transported \\ith 

the same humane techniques employed for banding and specimen 

collection. In fact, the techniques developed by falconers later were 

adopted by the scientific and conservation community. To be of any value 

for falconry or captive propagation, raptors must be maintained in nearly 

perfect physical and emotional condition. Therefore, proper care and 

handling during capture and transport is foremost. Further, to transport 

birds of prey internationally by air, a raptor must be shipped individually 

in a specially constructed container prescribed in Container Requirement 

20 by the International Air Transport Association and it must be 

accompanied by a health certificate issued by a governmental authority 

from the country of origin. 

3. Falconers and falconry techniques have been the cornerstone of raptor 

conservation efforts throughout the world. We point with pride at our 

efforts in the recovery of the Peregrine Falcon, now being considered for 

de listing from the Endangered Species List. To be a falconer or a raptor 

propagator, an individual must meet a series of very strict standards for 

knowledge and maintenance facilities. These standards are in place at our 

lmb7\J073J .d 3 
Testimony of Frank M. Bond 

WBCA Oversight Hearings 

September 28, 1995 

107 

request to ensure that only competent and dedicated individuals are issued 

permits. We insist that the welfare of these birds be placed above all 

other concerns. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has issued several cooperative captive breeding 

permits to raptor propagators which are required under WBCA. Some people here today may 

argue that the problems for captive propagators of raptors are taken care of by the issuance of 

cooperative program permits. I assume that it has been an administrative burden for the Service 

to complete such propagation program requests. For those who breed many raptors in captivity, 

it has been yet another regulatory burden without any perceived benefit. In fact, it is simply 

another stumbling block which actually inhibits the work of several conservation programs. I 

believe that Service recognizes the problem, but the WBCA demands that more unnecessary 

paperwork be completed for birds of prey. 

If the WBCA is ever going to benefit any wild populations of birds, then it must be much 

better focus~d on very specialized problems. Those problems need to be defined and understood 

completely by the people who are going to administer the WBCA. All families or species of 

birds which will not benefit from the system developed under the WBCA should be specifically 

exempted. For the reasons stated above. Falconiformes should be exempted, because wild 

populations are now protected, international movement is strictly controlled, and people who 

handle raptors for any purpose are closely ;cgulated. 

fmh7\10731.d 4 
PIJAC 

~ GX!) 

............ 

108 

BEFORE THE 

PET INDUSTRY 

JOINT ADVISORY 

COUNCIL 

1220 19th Street. N.W. 

Suite 400 

Wa shingiOn, D.C. 200 36 

Tdepho nt': 202 -4'j2- 1525 

F<11<: 202-293-4377 

SUBCOMMIITEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMMIITEE ON RESOURCES 

STATEMENT OF 

MARSHALL MEYERS 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL 

CONCERNING 

THE WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992 

P.L. 102-440 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

Communication with respect to this 

Statement should be addressed to: 

N. Marshall Meyers 

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 

1220 19th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 452-1525 
109 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

STATEMENT OF 

MARSHALL MEYERS 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL 

CONCERNING 

THE WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT OF 1992 

P.L. 102-440 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Marshall Meyers, 

Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 

(PIJAC). I appreciate the opportunity to testifY on the implementation, or lack thereof, of 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA). 

PIJAC has been involved with this issue since its genesis some eight years ago. 

PIJAC has been, and remains, supportive of the underlying intent of the WBCA. 

Unfortunately, however, several ofPIJAC's reservations expressed during the original 

Congressional deliberations have become a reality. At the same time, PIJAC remains 

actively involved in the Department's implementation process as regulations needed to 

implement the Act languish in the recesses of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Despite these implementation problems, PIJAC remains hopeful that the WBCA 

can become an effective conservation tool. The future success of the WBCA, however, 

will require several amendments and far greater Congressional oversight than has existed 

during the past three years. 

If the WBCA is to meet its objectives, certain amendments, not repeal, are 

required. PIJAC respectfully urges the Committee to consider the following: 

I. Amend Section 113 to carry out the original Congressional intent 

that CITES Appendix III birds are not covered by the WBCA 

except for those birds located in the listing country. 

2. Reauthorize the WBCA with recommendations for adequate 

funding to properly implement and enforce the Act. 
110 

3. Direct the Secretary to fully implement the WBCA by expeditiously 

promulgating user-friendly, reasonable, and workable regulations 

with respect to approval of foreign captive breeding facilities and 

foreign sustainable-use conservation programs. 

4. Amend Sections 106 and 107 of the WBCA to ensure that captive 

bred exotic birds may be freely imported into the United States 

pursuant to regulations which contain incentives, not disincentives. 

5. Amend Section 112{4), to exempt progeny of approved U.S. 

cooperative breeding programs from any tracking requirements. 

6. Periodically convene Congressional oversight hearings, at least 

annually, until the Committee is satisfied that the WBCA has been 

properly implemented. 

It should be emphasized that PIJAC is not asking Congress to rewrite the 

proposed FWS regulations. Rather, we are requesting that the original Congressional 

intent be made clear to insure that the final regulations do not contravene this intent. 

Minor legislative modifications to the WBCA are required. 

While we are sensitive to the fact that the Congress authorized $5,000,000 

annually for fiscal years 1993 through 1995, far less has been actually appropriated. 

Moreover, the Administration, to the best of our knowledge, has not requested 

appropriations the past two years. Thus, implementation takes a back-seat to other 

programs; foreign assistance as contemplated by Section 114 (16 U.S.C. 4913) is 

meaningless; and exporting countries remain bewildered why the equally concerned 

European Union continues to work with them to import wild-caught birds while gathering 

data and implementing conservation management programs. At this point, the United 

States remains isolated in its inability or unwillingness to adequately address the issues 

presented. 

Passage ofthe WBCA was the result of a significant compromise among a number 

of varied interest groups. Rather than adopting an outright ban on imports, we thought 

that the Congress elected instead to continue its support of sustainable utilization by 

including in the WBCA specific provisions that allow for importation of captive-bred as 

well as wild-caught CITES listed species. Accordingly, the WBCA was designed to 

promote conservation of exotic birds by: 

I. Ensuring that all imports into the United States are biologically 

sustainable and not detrimental to the species. 

2. Ensuring that imported birds are not subjected to inhumane treat. nent 

during capture and transport. 
111 

3. Assisting wild bird conservation and management programs in foreign 

countries. 

4. Encouraging and promoting captive breeding. 

Three years after enactment, the pet industry, aviculture, and others supportive of 

sustainable use programs anxiously await implementation of key portions of the WBCA 

that would facilitate importation of captive-bred birds and wild-caught birds harvested 

pursuant to U.S.-approved foreign conservation management programs. While it may 

have been the intent of Congress that the WBCA would accomplish these laudable goals, 

it appears that the Service's actions reflect a far different intent. The proposed regulations 

governing approval of foreign captive breeding facilities and foreign sustainable-use 

conservation export programs are so restrictive and burdensome as to promote 

disincentives, not incentives, for engaging in any of the activities contemplated by the 

Congress. 

No foreign captive breeder, no foreign government, and no U.S. importer will 

make any substantial investments in light of the high probability of denial by FWS as well 

as the risk of running afoul of aggressive FWS anti-wildlife-use law enforcement in the 

FWS. The risk is simply too great. 

The impact of the WBCA on the commercial pet bird industry has been and 

continues to be significant. 1 It has destroyed the import industry and adversely affected 

the supply of birds, both captive bred and wild-caught. Prior to enactment, the avian 

import program consisted of approximately 30 to 40 active importers responsible for 

importing slightly more than 320,000 birds for pets, captive breeding, zoological display, 

and re-export. For FY 95, USDA reports that only 55,166 birds have been received in 

U.S. quarantine facilities. Following enactment of the WBCA, only 6 to 7 active 

importers remain. Part of this attrition is directly related to economic conditions, shifting 

consumer preferences, increased domestic breeding of the larger Pssitacine species, not the 

WBCA As the import industry is further decimated, importation will become more than 

simply "difficult" for cooperative breeding programs, captive-bred birds, and the few wildcaught birds allowed access to U.S. markets. 

What has the WBCA actually accomplished? 

I. An inability of foreign captive breeders to obtain U.S. 

approval of their breeding facilities; 

2. An inability of foreign governments to gain U.S. approval of their avian 

sustainable use conservation programs; 

3. A failure to attain funding necessary to implement the act; 

4. A failure to provide foreign assistance to those countries seeking to 

implement U.S. approved conservation programs; and 

The commercial indusUy sales of live birds and related products (i.e., feed, cages, toys, 

medications) approximates $550 million dollars annually. 
112 

5. The prohibited importation of all Appendix ID birds, species which are 

not part of the CITES scientific review and listing process. 

The Automatic Prohibition of aU Appendix ill Species is Inappropriate and Section 

lOS( c) Requires Amendment 

During Congressional hearings, PUAC addressed the anomaly of including all 

Appendix ill species under the WBCA Unlike species tisted under Appendices I and II which 

undergo CITES' scientific review, the listing of an Appendix ill species is a unilateral action of 

a particular CITES Party. When a species is tisted under Appendix ID, it is not subject to the 

same level of CITES controls. Such listings are solely for the purpose of assisting the listing 

nation in implementing its domestic legislation. Such listings are not subject to CITES' review 

to determine the biological or trade status of the species. 

During deliberations, PUAC urged the Committee to indicate clearly that Appendix ill 

species were not subjected to the same automatic import prohibitions being imposed on other 

CITES listed species. Our requests were ignored and Committee staff argued that the 

Legislative History would cure the problem. 

However, the FWS interpreted the WBCA to limit its applicability to Appendix ill 

listed species and determined that Appendix ill species are considered CITES-listed species 

under the WBCA Qnl.y if the birds originated in the country that listed the species. Shortly 

thereafter, the Humane Society of the United States and Defenders of Wildlife successfuUy 

challenged the Service's interpretation in the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. The Court found that the plain language of the Act bars importation of any CITESlisted species. Section I 05( c), therefore, should be amended to specifically exclude specimens 

of Appendix ill species from the automatic prohibitions of the WBCA unless they originated in 

the listing country. Such an amendment would not hold one country hostage to another 

country's listing. 

Approval of Foreign Conservation-based Sustainable Use Programs 

In assessing the implementation of the WBCA, the Committee needs to carefuUy 

review the regulations being promulgated. While the WBCA could benefit conservation 

management of wild-caught birds as weU as promote captive breeding, the regulations, both 

final and pending, implementing the WBCA are excessive, regressive and overly restrictive. 

Furthermore, a number of the proposed rules exceed the authority granted by the enabling 

statute. They remove any incentive to (I) captive breed birds for export to the United States, 

or (2) develop management plans for exporting wild-caught birds under the U.S. criteria. The 

proposed regulations contain requirements not only specifically speUed out in the law, but also 

a number of additional requirements that, while possibly technically justifiable, reflect the ecoimperialism that is becoming so prominent in American foreign wildlife policy. 

Do not be misled by Departmental protestations regarding criticism of the proposed 

regulations and claims that such criticism is premature. No matter what excuses or cloak the 

4 
113 

Department wraps around its actions by characterizing proposed regulations as "tentative," 

"conceptual," or "ideas" published simply for public comment, the underpinnings of those 

proposals clearly reveal Departmental philosophy and intent, though it may be modified as a 

result of public outcry, contempt, and increasing public disdain for intrusive federal 

government. Later in my testimony I will comment in detail on several aspects of those 

proposals to highlight concerns raised by PUAC at various levels of the legislative and 

regulatory process. 

While the proposed regulations contain a perception that the U.S. supports and 

encourages sustainable development pursuant to conservation management plans, a close 

reading of the complex, often overbearing criteria, clearly indicates a patronizing, 

sometimes high-handed, approach that will discourage, not encourage, the desired result. 

Prohibiting imports to the U.S. will not affect exports to Europe or the Far East. 

Therefore, the U.S. should consider working with developing countries in the same spirit 

as the European Union to encourage the development of basic conservation management 

programs that can be enhanced as the country gains experience. The EU approach 

involves cooperation, funding, and technical assistance. Moreover, the EU works with 

exporting countries in the development of acceptable quotas as a means of allowing 

limited trade to support the program. A total ban while gathering data, as advocated by 

some staff, sends a far different message and achieves an anti-sustainable use result. 

The proposed regulations go farther, however, by mandating what a country must 

do to implement CITES rather than ask what they are doing. In essence, a sovereign 

nation must implement CITES "the U.S. way" or such implementation is "inadequate" for 

purposes ofFWS regulations. Furthermore, the criteria set forth in the proposed 

regulations go well beyond the statute by requiring detailed scientific data rather than 

allowing the countries the opportunity to provide data they deem relevant to demonstrate 

that export is non-detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild -- the CITES 

standard. 

For a foreign government's plan to qualifY under the proposed regulations, the 

FWS must--

(I) Determine if the country has established a "functioning" Scientific 

Authority" (even though the WBCA only requires the establishment 

of a scientific authority or equivalent);

2 

(2) Pass judgment on whether the country has complied with CITESrecommended "remedial measures" (apparently U.S. judgment can 

supersede CITES determinations of compliance) -- an indication of an 

insidious form of eco-imperialism); 

(3) Pass judgment on the country's "establishment of legislation and 

infrastructure necessary to enforce ... " CITES, and the submission of 

annual reports3

; and 

WBCA Sectioos 106 and 107 do not address what constitutes a "functioning Authority." 

5 
114 

(4) Evaluate, receive public comment, and approve or deny the country's 

"scientifically-based management plan" that addresses biological and 

humane issues. 

To qualify a foreign government's conservation management plan as 

"scientifically-based," an exporting country would have to provide extensive amounts of 

population, reproduction, nest site, clutch size, nest competition, diet and where the 

species "forages" (at each life cycle), habitat (at each life cycle) and trade data. The 

approval process would also require the status, current and future trends for the species, 

as well as its habitat, including scientific references. Additional information on habitat 

would also be required. 

Population data must be for "at least three separate years or one year with plans 

for future years." Habitat data must cover the entire range throughout the country (with 

scientific references and maps), status and trends of important habitats used by the species, 

management activities relative to the habitat, and a list of management plans "planned, 

developed, or implemented for the species' important habitats," "information on the role 

of the species in its ecosystem," incentives for conservation including how utilization 

"promotes the value of the species and its habitat by means of environmental education, 

cooperative efforts or projects, development of cooperative management units, and/or 

activities involving local communities," and a host of other information. 

The management plan must provide for conservation of the species at "optimal 

levels", even for pest species that are, in some instances, being exterminated or subject to 

rigorous population reduction programs. To be exported in trade, however, the species, 

however, must be maintained at "optimal" levels. The regulations contain no definition of 

"optimal" so one is left to the predilections of the FWS reviewer, a person who might be 

totally opposed to pest management programs. 

Most of the information will take many people many years to gather, compile, and 

report in a fashion that passes U.S. peer review. The proposal clearly reflects the personal 

positions of several Service staff members that long term studies spanning many years 

must be submitted and that such studies must meet U.S. perceptions of valid data and 

scientific methodology. Not every species, especially pest species, warrants such a 

commitment. Nor do most countries enjoy the luxury of making such commitments. They 

are not flooded with doctoral candidates in this particular field and clearly do not possess 

Requiring current filing of annual reports as a condition precedent to approving a Section 106 foreign 

government's management plan or a Section 107 foreign captive breeding facility e.~cecds any 

authority contemplated by tile WBCA. While tile Deparunent is properly concerned about the status of 

CITES Annual Reports, this is not the appropriate vehicle to "blackmail" non~mpliant parties. It is 

also somewhat hypocritical to require "current" filings inasmuch as the United States' track record 

leaves a bit to be desired in tenns of annual report filings, both in tenns of timeliness and accuracy. 

Sanctions for late or non-filings should be dealt with only in the CITES arena - the WBCA was not 

conceived to police CITES member states or to be a CITES' enforcement agent.. 

6 
115 

the funds necessary to gather all of the data that FWS would require in the proposed 

regulations. 

To qualifY the plan, the foreign country would also have to provide a description 

(including photographs or diagrams) of the "shipping methods and enclosures ... including 

but not limited to feeding and care during transport, densities of birds in shipping 

enclosures, and estimated consignment sizes." Interestingly, current CITES resolutions, 

as well as the Lacey Act regulations (50 C.F.R. Sec. 14.101 et. seq.) require that all 

imports comply with those import shipping standards, including the International Air 

Transport Association's Live Animals Regulations. lATA approval would also be 

conditioned upon satisfYing the FWS that the "methods of capture, transport, and 

maintenance of the species minimize the risk of injury, damage to health, or inhumane 

treatment." 

Meeting these conditions may be practically insurmountable since experience has 

demonstrated that certain FWS staff members may not believe that such compliance can 

be achieved under any circumstances; therefore, no plans will be approved. Indeed, some 

in FWS advocate consignment size limits that make it totally uneconomic to trade (no 

more than 250 psittacines/500 non-psittacines per shipment or I 0 crates per shipment, 

whichever is smaller). Since the proposal provides no minimum standards or guidance, 

any standard proposed by an exporting country will be unfairly measured against the 

reviewer's subjective, not necessarily objective, perception of what is appropriate. 

The proposal would also require consideration of the effect trade might have on 

bird populations in countries other than the country of origin as well as the factors 

occurring in countries not seeking U.S. approval. This approach goes far beyond what is 

provided for in the WBCA or its legislative history. This would impose an unreasonable 

and unnecessary burden on an underdeveloped country to gather data and conduct the 

required impact analysis on other range states when it will experience sufficient difficulties 

in providing data with respect to its own country. 

The bottom line? Simply that adopting unattainable criteria is nothing more than 

a smoke screen -- it is an effective ban, not a conservation management tool. Flexibility is 

required to assist such underdeveloped countries to develop and implement conservation 

management programs that achieve the intent of the WBCA. PIJAC continues to support 

the underlining rational on the WBCA but remains opposed to imposition of complex, 

unattainable criteria on underdeveloped countries or regulatory mechanisms which 

inherently result in impossible compliance. 

Fundamental to the development of such rational and realizable conservation 

management plans is flexibility, cooperation, reasonableness, and consultation. 

Unfortunately, the WBCA is void of any reference mandating "consultation." 

Furthermore, bilateral, not unilateral, consultation and cooperation is essential for the 

WBCA to meet the Congressional intent. Absent inclusion of such language in the 

WBCA, it will not occur as a matter of course. PIJAC recommends that the WBCA be 

7 
116 

amended to include consultation language similar to that being considered in modifications 

to the Endangered Species Act. 

In summary, while FWS pays lip service to the WBCA, it has crafted Regulations 

which are totally at odds to the Congressional declaration of intent. 

Approval of Captive-Breeding Facilities 

The proposed mechanism for approving foreign captive breeding facilities is Orwellian 

at best and simply ludicrous. No regulation could be better designed as a disincentive for 

captive breeding than the one proposed here. Moreover, the proposal goes far beyond the 

enabling statute. 

Part of the rationale for the WBCA was the encouragement of captive breeding; the 

requirements proposed by the Department, however, provide one of the greatest disincentives 

to captive breeding one could ever devise. The purpose for qualifYing such facilities is clearly 

spelled out in the Congressional history. The Report accompanying the final legislation 

specifically states that: 

It is the intent of the breeders bill to encourage captive breeding both in the 

United States and elsewhere. Concern has been expressed that small breeders 

may wish to ship birds to the United States via larger scale breeders but may be 

precluded from doing so under this Act. It is not the intent of the Committee 

to prohibit such transfers, and the Committee believes that the Secretary has 

sufficient discretion to allow them under this bill. It is also the intent of the 

Committee that the paperwork burden required of participating captive 

breeding facilities be minimized, especially as it applies to small facilities that 

employ few people. (House Report 102-479 (I) at page 18; emphasis 

supplied). 

In short, the proposed regulations are far more than procedural in nature; they contain 

a number of substantive provisions that go far beyond the enabling legislation and a number of 

proposals are contrary to Congressional intent. The proposal contains various provisions that 

are overbearing and impose inappropriate requirements on foreign governments and are totally 

unwarranted. The proposal hardly encourages captive breeding in foreign facilities, but rather 

creates an isolationist approach that discriminates against foreign breeders. The proposal, if 

adopted in its present form, would result in an unnecessarily arduous and cumbersome process 

adversely affecting not only potential foreign breeding facilities, but also their governments. 

The end result will thus be to thwart the intent of the legislation. 

The proposed regulations would impose on foreign breeders a complex regulatory 

mechanism requiring an overwhelming degree of regulation and unnecessary detail, not 

consistent with the purposes of the Act. Such requirements would include. 

8 
117 

I. Breeding protocols and genetic management programs. 

2. Description of qualifications and experience of the persons caring for the birds. 

3. Tracking system to trace captive bird progeny after initial sale. 

4. A summary of their nation's legislation implementing CITES. 

5. Production and trade data for two calendar years prior to submission of 

application. 

6. Detailed description offacilities and activities. 

Furthermore, the United States would impose upon foreign governments a number of 

requirements as a condition precedent to approving a breeding facility, such as: 

I. Implementation of an inspection program. 

2. Verification of data, breeding protocols, and ability offacility to produce the 

projected number of progeny. 

3. Certification that the breeding stock was legally acquired. 

To avoid such complexity, the WBCA requires amendment to facilitate, not deter 

captive breeding. PUAC, therefore, endorses amendment to Section I 07 being proposed 

today by the American Federation of Aviculture. 

Thank you very much for providing us this opportunity to testify today. We look 

forward to working with the Committee in resolving problems associated with 

implementation of the WBCA. 

9 
Adina Rae Freedman, CAE 

Executive Director 

Central Office 

118 

Ass6ciatioV1 of AviaVI VeteriVJariaVJs 

Advancing and Promotmg Av1an MediCine and Stewardship 

Statement of Susan L. Clubb, DVM, Dip ABVP- Avian Specialty 

before 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: 

It is a great pleasure to be able to testify before your subcommittee on behalf of 

the Association of Avian Veterinarians (AA V) in regard to the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-440) 

I am a veterinarian working almost exclusively with exotic birds. Specifically I 

currently hoid several employment positions which give me insight into the effects of the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act. I am staff veterinarian for Parrot Jungle and Gardens, a bird 

park in Miami Florida. I teach a certification training course for pet retailers for the Pet 

Industry Joint Advisory Council. I do research and product testing for Pretty Bird 

International, a bird food company. I also consult for a Loro Parque, a bird park in Spain 

which would like to export captive bred birds to the US. My husband and I own and 

operate a commercial breeding farm for exotic birds and I have a mobile avicultural 

vett>rinary practice. 

I represented AA Von the Cooperative Working Group on Bird Trade which 

originally drafted the Exotic Bird Conservation Act. As you may know this original bill 

became hotly contested while under consideration by the House Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee when a second bill was introduced by several animal rights and 

animal protection groups. The result was the Wild Bird Conservation Act. 

The Association of Avian Veterinarians has a very strong conservation ethic as 

evidenced by our stated purpose. AA V supports conservation projects and organizations 

with annual gmnts equal to I% of our net income. AA V supported the original draft, the 

Exotic Bird C<:<nservution Act. AA V also supported the pas,age of the Wild Bird 

Conserv;rtion Act, however at the time of passage h&.d some reservations about some 

aspects of the net. Sorne sections of the Act were perceived as vr:.t'J restrictive and others 
.119 

unnecessary. Since passage of the act however, it is my feeling that the regulations 

promulgated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service have been excessively restrictive and 

represent an excessive and unnecessary paperwork burden for those who wish to import 

birds under the exemptions provided by the act. Publication of some regulations has also 

been delayed excessively, for example, the Final rule establishing the exemption for 

sustainable utilization has not yet been published, almost 3 years after passage of the act. 

I have several specific areas of concern which I hope will be addressed by the 

Subcommittee. 

First, I am concerned about several specific points in the bill which I feel should be 

revised. Second I am concerned about the regulations as promulgated by the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service which are complex, restrictive, and burdensome. Third, I continue to be 

concerned about the handling of pennits by the Service. 

I strongly feel that there are several sections of the WBCA which should be 

revised. 

Section 115: Marking and Record Keeping 

The regulation, ie marking, of captive birds within the United States provides NO 

conservation benefit for birds in the wild. I strongly believe that all birds, both pets and 

avicultural stock, should be marked for health and animal management reasons. On April 

I 0, 1994 numerous aviculturists demonstrated to the US Fish and Wildlife Service that 

voluntary programs exist and function well. While closed banding is recommended by 

many if not most aviculturists in the US, many veterinarians still routinely remove bands 

for safety reasons. While I disagree, I must respect the opinions of my colleagues. 

Currently, the electronic identification systems available in this country are not compatible 

and are too expensive for widespread use. 

Any system of mandatory marking and reporting would be exorbitantly expensive 

to implement and maintain. Unless a extraordinary public health or animal health reason 

existed the expense of such of program could never be justified. For example, the control 

of Rabies, a major public health concern, requires vaccination and licensing of all dogs and 

cats. This program is intensively managed on a county basis throughout the US. Despite 

costly implementation, compliance is generally 50% or less. This marking section of the 

bill should be removed as it is a point of concern and anxiety for aviculturists, has no 

conservation benefit and is virtually impossible to implement. It is not a deterent to 

smuggling and provides no conservation benefit for wild populations. 

Regarding Section 107: QualifYing Facilities (for export of captive bred birds to 

the United States). (b) (6) "All birds exported from the facility are bred at the facility." 

This requirement of the WBCA is very restrictive and virtually eliminates the 

potential for economically viable trade in captive bred birds on a commercial basis. As in 

any business enterprise, some volume is necessary for trade to be profitable. Most 
120 

breeding facilities, throughout the world, are small, family owned facilities. Logically, 

they would have great difficulty in dealing with exhaustive paperwork required for 

approval of their facilities. If they could become approved, it is unlikely that they could 

assemble enough birds to make a shipment financially feasible. Separate approvals are 

required for each species. Not only must they meet the requirements ofWBCA, but they 

must deal with shipping expenses, quarantine costs as imposed by USDA and must allow a 

margin of profit for the US dealer. If a foreign dealer could coordinate shipments for a 

number of approved breeders, and even assist them in the approval process, economically 

viable trade could occur. Otherwise only the most rare and valuable birds will be traded 

due to the high costs. This serves NO conservation benefit. If the act is to truly enhance 

trade in captive bred birds this section should be removed. The Act specifically allows the 

appropriate foreign governmental authority to certify a facility. This is appropriate and 

should not require extensive regulation by USFWS. 

Legislative history states and I quote "it is the intent of the "bill" to encourage 

captive breeding both in the United States and elsewhere. Concern has been expressed 

that the small scale breeders may wish to ship birds to the United States via larger scale 

breeders, but may be precluded from doing so under this act. It is not the intent of the 

(Congressional) Committee to prohibit such transfers, and the Committee believes that the 

Secretary has sufficient discretion to allow them under this bill. It is also the intent of the 

Committee that the paperwork burden required of participating captive breeding facilities 

be minimized, especially as it applies to small facilities that employ few people." 

My second area of concern is that of oppressive regulation by the USFWS under 

the auspices of the WBCA. For example in Section 107: Qualifying Facilities- the Act 

has 6 requirements: 

I The facility has demonstrated the capability of producing captive-bred birds of the 

species in numbers to be imported into the US from that facility, 

2. The facility is operated in a manner that is not detrimental to the survival of the species 

in the wild. 

3. The facility is operated in a humane manner. 

4. The appropriate governmental authority of the country in which the facility is located 

has certified in writing and the Secretary is satisfied, that the facility has the capability of 

breeding the species in captivity. 

5. The country in which the facility is located is a Party to the Convention. 

6. All the birds exported from the facility are bred at the facility. 

The proposed regulations however required the breeder to make 33 statements, including 

but certainly not limited to: A summary oflegislation implementing CITES in the country, 
121 

production levels for the last few years and future anticipated production, a breeding 

protocol, genetic management plan, details of breeding techniques, number and origin of 

original stock, statement that the parental stock was established without detriment to the 

survival of the species and certification that original stock was legally acquired, statement 

of anticipated augmentation, descriptions or photos of facilities, husbandry practices, 

veterinary care, records of disease and mortality, qualifications of care takers, record 

keeping systems, trade data and a statement that enforcement controls are in place in the 

country to prevent laundering. The secretary must then use 13 points in evaluation of 

applications. A separate application must be made for each bird. Approval is valid for 2 

years. 

These regulations have been published ONLY as proposed rules, 3 years post 

enactment! It is my understanding that the USFWS received in excess of 5000 letters 

protesting the proposed rules for this section of the Act. 

In recent discussions with Mark Phillips of the USFWS, he stated that as of late 

August 1995, 673 WBCA pennit applications have been received and 562 of these have 

been approved. However, 620 or 92% of these applications were for pet birds of US 

citizens returning to the US. 

Final rules implementing other exemptions under the WBCA have been published, 

and they are significantly better that the proposed rules. Compliance with the proposed 

regulations for imports under exemptions for Scientific research, Zoological display and 

Cooperative Breeding programs and imports was virtually impossible especially for the 

average citizen. The Final rule was published on November 16, 1993 and many of the 

almost impossible restrictions were removed, however the final rules is still so oppressive 

that only 53 total pennit applications ( 7 for scientific research, 27 for zoos, and 19 for 

cooperative breeding programs and imports) have been received by the service of which 

only 34 (64%) have been approved. It is my belief that the regulations are so complex 

that applicants are intimidated, afraid to attempt application. These regulations must be 

simplified in order to make the act work. Oppressive regulation has NO conservation 

benefit. The purpose of the act was to limit the massive, unsustainable trade in wild 

caught birds for pets, not to make imports under the exemptions so difficult. 

Sustainable utilization of resources has been widely endorsed by IUCN and other 

global conservation authorities as the primary means of conservation of those resources. 

In an age when the worlds human population continues to squeeze wild areas, adding 

value for the protection of habitat must be paramount. Sustainable utilization of exotic 

birds is the only logical way that this Act will benefit wild populations. Granted the 

reduction of imports into the United States has reduced part of the demand on these 

populations, however, the pressures are still there. Growing human populations, habitat 

destruction, internal trade and trade to other regions of the world continue unabated. The 

concept of the US funding conservation programs in other countries sounds good but is 

illogical in times of fiscal restraints. Despite this, no proposed rules have been published 

for implementation of this section of the Act - three years post enactment. 
122 

My final concern is regarding USFWS handling of permits. I have not personally 

applied for any permits under WBCA, however over the years I have on many occasions 

applied for permits from USFWS for a variety of purposes, mostly for export of captive 

bred birds. I have personally found the Service to be difficult, frequently taking excessive 

time in permit processing. On permit applications requiring a foreign import permit which 

is valid for 6 months, the foreign permit frequently expires before a decision is rendered by 

the Service. The Service "appears" to be distrustful of its foreign counterparts despite the 

fact that they are Parties to the Convention and duly authorized. I am VERY concerned 

that this type of handling of other permits will carry over into handling of WBCA permits. 

I can prov,ide examples upon request. With the complexity of the permitting process, 

timely handling ofWBCA applications seems to be even more difficult. 

In closing I would like to reiterate that the Association of Avian Veterinarians and 

I personally, endorse the purpose and spirit of the Wild Bird Conservation Act. We are 

committed to the conservation of birds in the wild and to the establishment of species in 

captivity. We are concerned however about some aspects of the WBCA as outlined above 

and request consideration of amendment. We are also very concerned by the complex and 

restrictive regulations of the USFWS, the tardiness of promulgation of regulations for 

some vitally important sections of the act and their general demeanor in dealing with the 

public regarding permits. 

The subcommittee report should include language which will convey to the 

USFWS the intent to limit excessive paperwork, to limit regulation to only that which is 

necessary and to utilize the expertise of foreign CITES authorities in certification of 

foreign captive breeding facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today. I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have now or later. 
123 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE 

A VICUL TURE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Rick Jordan, 

For The 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, 

WILDLIFE & OCEANS 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

H1-805 O'NEILL HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

Concerning 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

P.L.102-440 

WRI1TEN TESTIMONY BY 

The American Federation of Aviculture, Inc. 

Laurella Desborough, 

President 

First Vice-President 

Gary P. Lilienthal, 

Robert}. Berry 

Executive Director 

Benny J. Gallaway, Ph.D. 

Vice-President and General Counsel Director of Conservation 

TESTIMONY BEFORE llfE SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTED BY 

Gary P. Lilienthal 

Vice-President and General Counsel 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF AVICUL TURE, INC. 

P.O. BOX 56218 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85079-6218 

(602) 484-0931 

28 September 1995 
124 

INTRODUCTION 

On July 29, 1992, the Report of the House of Representatives on H.R. 5013 was 

referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Ways and 

Means of the House of Representatives. In that Report on what was to become the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 ("WBCA"), the Honorable Walter B. Jones of 

North Carolina stated that "It is the intent of the Breeder's Bill to encourage captive 

breeding both in the United States and elsewhere" [emphasis added]. It is the 

perception of private aviculture that the WBCA, which became P.L. 102-440 on 

October 23, 1992, has failed that charge from the Congress in several key areas. Prior 

to addressing these areas, permit us to define ourselves and our position. 

Aviculturists in the private sector are generally individuals who have a 

genuine appreciation for and fascination with birds. They keep, study, breed and 

raise exotic birds in captivity either as a devoted avocation or commercial activity. 

The majority of private aviculturists recognize their stewardship responsibilities 

and are deeply concerned over dwindling wild populations of avian species and are 

sincerely dedicated to their conservation both in the wild and in captivity. Indeed, 

the mission statement of the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA) is "To 

preserve avian species on a worldwide basis". Aviculture has a commitment to 

establishing self-sustaining populations in captivity as well as habitat preservation 

and other conservation efforts in countries of origin. Aviculture believes that 

captive breeding is a valuable asset in conservation strategy by helping reduce 

demands on wild populations by virtue of making exotic birds readily available 

from captive-bred sources. Aviculture actively supports avian research resulting in 

improved knowledge and understanding of avian species. Aviculture is both a 

conservation and humanitarian effort. Aviculture represents grassroots 

participation at its best. Aviculture, as a cottage industry, contributes to taxes and 

the economy without cost to the government. 

In this forum, AFA, a non-profit organization, is representing the private 

aviculture sector. When this testimony was submitted, nearly 300 organizations 

had joined with AFA's testimony or had requested to be listed as supporting the 

testimony. Our constituents include people ranging from pet bird owners to 

commercial exotic bird breeders. Pet birds are represented in 6 to 10% of the 

households in the United States and the population of pet birds is estimated to be on 

the order of 14 to 30 million birds. Commercial aviculture exists mainly in the form 

of many thousands of small businesses but, collectively, the industry is large, on the 

order of $543.4 million in annual sales. 

A viculture has historically acknowledged that intense pressures have been 

and are being placed on exotic (non-native to the United States) bird populations by 

a number of sources. Devastating habitat destruction, hunting for food and feathers 

and local use as pets, natural predation, planned programs of eradication in 

countries of origin, smuggling and, prior to WBCA, unregulated trade, were and 

continue to be grave concerns. While most of these pressurer. continue (trade with 

1 
125 

the United States for most CITESLlisted species having been eliminated by the 

WBCA), aviculture is committed to the concept of sustainable yield, the 

conservation of exotic birds in their natural habitats and in captivity, and the strict 

regulation of international trade in wild-caught birds for the pet market. 

Aviculture was, in fact, one of the original participants of the Cooperative 

Working Group on the Bird Trade, organized by World Wildlife Fund. As part of 

this Group, aviculture formally acknowledged in 1988 the need for a regulated, 

sustainable trade in and wise use of wild-caught exotic birds in order to make them 

valuable assets in their countries of origin, and to promote saving them and their 

habitats. Aviculture also pointed out the need to address concerns regarding 

planned programs of avian eradication in countries of origin. Certain species of 

birds are seen not as resources to be used as economic incentives in their range 

countries but are considered pests to be destroyed. 

In 1992, aviculture supported the concept of the WBCA. As part of that Act, 

aviculture stressed the need to promote, encourage, and facilitate captive breeding of 

exotic birds in the U.S. and abroad. A vi culture supported the WBCA based, in part, 

upon the understanding that one cornerstone would be the free trade in captivebred exotic birds. Congress agreed, by enacting P.L. 102-440 which attempted to (1) 

insure that trade in wild-caught exotic birds involving the United States would be 

biologically sustainable and not detrimental to wild populations and (2) promote the 

role of captive breeding or aviculture to supply trade requirements as an alternative 

to harvest from the wild. 

Even now, private aviculture is not in favor of repealing the WBCA. 

Aviculturists believe their stewardship obligation requires that trade in wild-caught 

birds involving the U.S. should be biologically sustainable and not detrimental to 

wild populations. It is the position of aviculture, however, that the WBCA has 

failed to fulfill its promise and the mandate of Congress in a number of significant 

respects, particularly those relating to population studies in countries of origin and 

undue regulation of trade in captive-bred exotic birds. Regulation of legitimate 

captive-bred exotic birds has nothing to do with wild populations of exotic birds. 

We define specific problems and offer some sensible solutions below. 

AVICULTURE'S RECOMMENDATIONS 

Trade in Wild-Caught Exotic Birds 

The first concern is that the WBCA and Regulations developed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have resulted in an almost total ban on 

importation of exotic birds into the United States-even captive-bred birds. The 

WBCA had two primary goals. The first goal of the WBCA was to insure that trade 

in wild-caught exotic birds involving the U.S. would be biologically sustainable and 

not detrimental to wild populations. Congress, in 1992, recognized that well 

1 Convention on lntemational Trade in Endangered Species 

2 
126 

designed and comprehensive studies in the countries of origin would be needed to 

achieve the first goal, and authorized $5 million in fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995 

for this purpose. To date, only $1 million has been actually appropriated and these 

funds were for CITES permits and law enforcement. There has been no request by 

the Clinton Administration nor money appropriated for the WBCA for the past two 

fiscal years. Thus, the population studies necessary to establish exotic birds as 

sustainable and valuable assets in their countries of origin are not being conducted. 

However, trade between these countries and foreign countries other than the U.S. 

continues to the detriment of the wild populations. The WBCA is clearly failing to 

achieve its intended conservation role. While the U.S. is no longer a consumer of 

wild birds, the reversal of its commitment to fund the required population studies 

leaves the U.S. directly accountable for the ultimate decline and extinction of exotic 

bird populations. This reversal of stated intent has caused aviculture to have 

serious doubts as to the real goals of special-interest groups who endorse the WBCA 

as "an exemplary piece of conservation legislation that places the U.S., formerly the 

world's largest consumer of wild birds, at the forefront of efforts to conserve these 

magnificent species". Aviculture disagrees. The only accomplishments have been 

to mislead the American public and our CITES partners that U.S. aid would be 

forthcoming and to create a virtual total ban on all CITES exotic bird importation 

into the U.S. We recommend that Congress: 

1. Appropriate the funds authorized or direct USFWS to allocate existing 

budgetary resources to support and conduct sustainable-use research programs in 

exotic-bird range countries--studies which incorporate scientifically-sound 

protocols. 

Aviculture concurs with the underlying premise of the WBCA that sound 

scientific information is required before exotic birds can be safely harvested from the 

wild for the purpose of trade or any other reason. The requisite information is 

uniformly lacking, including data necessary to evaluate the presently popular 

concept of ranching (harvesting so-called excess production resulting from 

placement of artificial nest boxes). Before any sustainable harvest strategy can be 

evaluated, studies must be conducted which incorporate the scientific concepts of 

controls and replication in periods both before and after a management experiment 

is conducted. Such studies would require significant funding levels and time 

frames on the order of 6 to 10 years. Few, if any, have been initiated and none of the 

committed funding has been provided. Thus, the existing ban has no end in sight 

and the birds and their habitats have, in essence, been abandoned. 

2. Conduct an investigation of the actual scope of the smuggling problem 

involving the U.S. and an investigation of the USFWS enforcement activities. 

The only funds appropriated for the WBCA to date have been for law 

enforcement. The perception that high levels of smuggling are occurring is the 

justification for these expenditures. In 1987, Thomsen and Hemley (World Wildlife 

Fund/Traffic, U.S.A.) stated in Bird Trade ... Bjrd Bans that as many as 150,000 parrots 

3 
127 

may be smuggled across the Mexico border into the United States every year. In 

contrast, between 1991 and 1994, it has been reported that a total of only 573 birds 

were confiscated by the U.S. law enforcement agencies at that border. While it is not 

suggested that only 573 birds were smuggled in a four year period, there is clearly a 

huge credibility crisis here. 

Aviculture and aviculturists do not support smuggling, laundering or other 

illegal activities. Aviculturists abhor smuggling. In fact, AFA has produced and 

furnished to the USFWS a bilingual anti-smuggling poster .Jn parrots for the United 

States/Mexican border. At the very height of avicultural concerns is that smuggled 

birds jeopardize the health of avicultural collections with disease. 

The USFWS Division of Law Enforcement has told Congress of intensive and 

expansive enforcement activities. USFWS conducts sting operations and publicizes 

indictments. Through as little as hearsay or rumor, come undeserved arrests, broad 

search warrants and unwarranted confiscation of birds (in some cases having Jed to 

the deaths of the birds, even rare birds). Many of the resulting charges involve only 

paperwork or other minor technical violations. Aviculturists are intimidated by 

such events, even when not directly involved. Certainly, smugglers should be 

prosecuted, but there appears to be a deliberate effort to expand enforcement to 

entrap innocent aviculturists and to place a stigma on all aviculture. 

Aviculturists would like to work with USFWS to stop the real smuggling of 

exotic birds, but until USFWS Division of Law Enforcement stops seeing all 

aviculturists as potential smugglers or law breakers, this will be impossible. On a 

positive note, recently a new Chief has been appointed at USFWS Office of 

Management Authority and he has reached out to the avicultural community. 

Aviculture believes that this is signaling a new era of cooperation and 

understanding between USFWS and aviculture. Aviculture welcomes this. 

Hopefully, this outreach will expand to law enforcement. 

3. Amend Section 105(c), "Moratoria on Imports of Exotic Birds Covered by 

Convention", to clarify that exotic birds covered on Appendix III of the Convention 

shall only be subject to the WBCA as to those species found in the country of 

Appendix III listing. 

After adoption of the WBCA, anti-trade activists took the USFWS to Federal 

Court to effectively include in the WBCA birds listed on CITES Appendix III (that is 

birds listed specifically as to certain countries of origin, but not as to all CITES parties 

at large), regardless of their country of origin or listing. The anti-trade plaintiffs 

alleged that this was justified because the WBCA failed to make a distinction 

between birds listed on Appendix Ill which are country-specific, and the same 

species occurring in non-listing countries. Under CITES, birds listed on Appendix ill 

are only included within the CITES Treaty for specific countries where the species 

may be rare and not as to other countries of origin where the species may be 

abundant. Appendix ill listed birds are not endangered or threatened species. They 

are merely birds in which specific countries, but not CITES at large, do not wish to 

4 
128 

trade. The court has held that the WBCA made no such distinction even though it 

may have intended to do so. 

Section lOS(c) should have appropriate wording added to effectively limit the 

coverage of the WBCA of Appendix ill birds to wild exotic birds originating in the 

country of listing only. 

4. Amend Section 112(2) "Exemptions for Personal Pets" by requiring the 

USFWS to issue regulations simplifying the importation of pet birds. 

The WBCA allows that an individual may import up to two exotic birds in 

any year upon his/her return to the United States after having been continuously 

out of the country for a minimum of one year. Issuance of such permits should be 

based upon nothing more than an affidavit from the applicant that he/she has met 

the out-of-country requirement, has not exceeded the allowable two birds, has 

acquired the birds legally, has the proper CITES or other required permits, and that 

the intent of the importation is not for re-sale purposes. The requisite permits 

would be attached to the affidavit. Abuse of the "personal pet" exemption is 

unlikely to ever reach proportions that will be detrimental to wild populations. 

Presently, due to the relatively large number of personal pet versus other 

applications, and the complexity of the existing information requirements, it is 

likely that a large fraction of available USFWS staff time is spent in processing 

innocuous pet-bird permits. As a result, more significant and complex permit 

applications experience unacceptably-long delays. 

5. Amend Regulations under Section 112(4), "Cooperative Breeding 

Programs", to eliminate the requirements imposed by the USFWS under the 

Regulations that participants be required to "track the whereabouts of progeny of 

imported birds." 

In its Report, Page 20, Congress directed the Secretary to issue permits if the 

applicant can demonstrate that he or she is capable and fully intends to keep track of 

imported birds and their offspring. The purpose of this requirement was to ensure 

that if efforts to reintroduce the species into the wild were undertaken, the location 

of birds that might be included in such a program and their genetic makeup would 

be known. However, upon reflection, aviculture believes that WBCA regulations 

requiring the tracking of the progeny will act as an impediment to aviculturists 

participating in captive breeding of captive-bred offspring of birds imported under 

Section 112. Additionally, due to the breeding biology of many of these species, this 

could eventually lead to the tracking of hundreds, or even thousands, in the case of 

more prolific species, of birds and will be totally unworkable and unmanageable. It 

also introduces the specter of unwarranted law enforcement activities involving 

U.S. captive-bred exotic birds. Certainly, cooperative breeding programs will 

encourage the participation of aviculturists in continuing to breed captive-bred 

offspring of imported cooperative breeding program birds. However, if these 

programs become successful in producing large numbers of offspring, regulation 

requiring tracking of captive-bred offspring will deter avicultural breeding efforts. It 

5 
129 

will also remove the incentive for cooperative breeding programs, which is to have 

as many participants working with and producing as many captive-bred offspring 

from cooperative breeding program imported birds as possible. The USFWS has 

already seen this deterrence of captive breeding under the CBW (Captive Bred 

Wildlife) Program under the Endangered Species Act. This program requires 

tracking of captive-bred endangered species and has deterred broad participation and 

is actually shutting down breeding programs for endangered species due to the 

limited numbers of aviculturists willing to register with the government. The 

WBCA itself under Section 112(4)(A) only required the promotion of conservation 

of the species by enhancing the propagation and survival of the species. It was the 

Report which contemplated the tracking of progeny for future release programs. At 

this time it is more important to encourage propagation of these species than it is to 

track the whereabouts of offspring for release programs which may be decades away. 

If these programs are successful, the whereabouts of captive-bred cooperative 

breeding program species will be well known in aviculture and the deregulation of 

progeny will actually serve as a greater incentive for wider participation by 

aviculturists in promoting captive breeding of cooperative breeding program 

progeny. 

Trade in Captive-Bred Birds 

Captive breeding of exotic birds was already dramatically increasing between 

1985 and 1992, prior to the WBCA, due to advancements in and education by the 

groups joining in this testimony about exotic avian science, veterinary techniques, 

diet and husbandry and increased interest and participation in aviculture. Captivebred birds were and continue to be naturally replacing wild-caught birds for the pet 

trade. The WBCA has had little to do with the increase in breeding of exotic avian 

species. On the other hand, the inability of aviculture to import even captive-bred 

exotic birds since adoption of the WBCA is already having a detrimental effect on 

avicultural activities. While avicuiture has the ability to fill a great deal of the void 

created by the WBCA in the pet trade supply, it must be given the tools to continue 

to do so. Foreign breeders of exotic birds have different gene pools and species 

needed by U.S. aviculture. Shipping mortality of captive-bred birds is far below the 

14% level reported for wild-caught exotic birds. The prohibitive WBCA regulatory 

structure, especially with respect to the ability of aviculturists to import captive-bred 

exotic birds, is deterring avicultural pursuits both in supplying the pet trade and in 

creating self-sustaining populations of exotic birds for preservation of rare and 

endangered species. This was not the intent of the WBCA. 

Aviculture is gravely concerned that without swift and decisive action by 

Congress, the WBCA will continue to fail aviculture in the U.S. and abroad as it 

relates to trade in captive-bred birds. For aviculture, this is the most important part 

of the current oversight and reauthorization process. The WBCA must 

acknowledge the legitimacy of aviculture if captive-bred birds are to replace wildcaught birds in trade. Aviculture respectfully requests that Congress amend the 

WBCA and give direction to the USFWS as summarized below. 

6 
130 

6. Amend Section 107, "Qualifying Facilities", and require the USFWS to 

issue regulations which will promote the captive breeding of exotic birds in the 

United States and foreign countries and insure the free importation of captive bred 

exotic birds into the United States as a tool to promote aviculture and exotic bird 

conservation, and to control illegal trade. 

On March 17, 1994, the USFWS proposed complicated and intrusive 

regulations under Section 107 as a precondition to allowing captive-bred birds to be 

imported into the United States. The draft regulations were so unworkable and 

intrusive that they resulted in a massive outcry from aviculture. Unfortunately, no 

final regulations have been adopted. Therefore, it is impossible for Congress to 

review these during this oversight process. The draft regulations as proposed would 

surely have deterred captive breeding and would certainly not have promoted it. 

They were also hypocritical. The USFWS requires only a simple affidavit of captivebreeding to allow CITES-listed birds bred in the United States to be exported from 

the United States. The regulation of legitimate captive-bred birds has nothing to do 

with wild exotic bird populations. It was not the intent of the WBCA to regulate 

captive-bred birds. The fear of "laundering" (trading in wild-caught birds alleging 

they are captive-bred) is used to justify the proposal of overly restrictive regulations 

to control importation of captive-bred birds. This is neither appropriate nor 

acceptable. 

Currently, WBCA Section 107 is a simple section for which the USFWS has 

proposed complicated and excessive regulations requiring, among other things, 

disclosure of proprietary husbandry and breeding information, proof of origin of 

breeding stock, cage sizes, diet and other detail in such a way as to deter any but the 

largest captive breeding facilities with huge staffs from qualifying. This will not 

insure against laundering, but will effectively eliminate from trade most captive 

breeding facilities which do not have the staff or funds to complete and furnish the 

paperwork which the USFWS requires. This was not the intent of Congress which 

stated in the Report: "It is also the intent of the Committee that the paperwork 

burden required of captive breeding facilities be minimized, especially as it applies to 

small facilities that employ few people." Report page 18. This directive was either 

missed or disregarded by the USFWS in its proposed regulations. The regulations as 

proposed will even discourage participation by larger facilities which might comply 

with reasonable and workable regulations as a cost of trade with the United States. 

Most individuals would sooner pursue unregulated trade with other countries 

rather than comply with unworkable or intrusive U.S. regulations and delays. 

Aviculture requests that the WBCA be amended and that Congress instruct 

the USFWS to effectively allow and promote the importation of captive-bred birds 

under Section 107, as follows: 

(i) Require an affidavit from the facility of breeding that birds to be 

imported were bred from parents housed at the facility. 

7 
131 

(ii) Require that birds to which an affidavit pertains be marked with a 

simple marking system for identification. 

(iii) Require a certificate by a licensed veterinarian that the facility contains 

an adequate number of pairs to supply birds in the numbers to be exported and is 

operated humanely. 

(iv) Require local CITES management authority certification that the 

operation of that facility does not deplete birds in the wild. 

(v) Provide the USFWS with a quota option on a facility-by-facility basis to 

be used to guard against laundering. 

(vi) Provide that owners of a facility proved to be laundering birds to the 

United States shall forever lose their right to export birds to the United States. 

7. Amend Section 106(b)(l), "List of Approved Species", to clarify that 

Congress did not intend for species regularly bred in captivity and for which no 

wild-caught birds of the species are in "trade", did not mean that if any of a regularly 

captive-bred species are in illegal trade, the species would not then qualify as 

regularly bred in captivity. 

The USFWS, in promulgating its Regulations, added the words "legal or 

illegal" to modify the word "trade" when determining whether or not species 

regularly bred in captivity and of which no wild-caught birds were in "trade" would 

qualify under the List of Approved Species. It is both unreasonable and an 

inappropriate conservation measure to add the words "illegal or legal" when 

describing trade in determining whether birds regularly bred in captivity would 

qualify as approved species. The fact that some number of birds of a given species 

may be in illegal trade should not preven', birds regularly bred in captivity and for 

which wild-caught individuals are not generally in the pet trade from being 

approved species under Section 106(b){l). In fact, withholding from the Approved 

Species List species regularly bred in captivity merely because some of those species 

may be in illegal trade will actually serve as an incentive for continued smuggling. 

If birds regularly bred in captivity are on the Approved List, then they will be readily 

available to the trade and the smuggled bird will not be at a premium. In fact, in the 

Report, on Page 17, Congress stated, in reflecting on the Approved Species List of the 

New York State Wild Bird Law that " ... certain species are exempted from the 

banding requirement because virtually all of the specimens of those species in trade 

have been captive-bred" [emphasis added]. It is clear that Congress intended the 

Secretary to use the criteria used for the New York State Law which makes no 

distinction for birds regularly bred in captivity not qualifying because some were or 

might be in illegal trade. In the Report, Page 17, Congress stated that the Secretary 

should " ... include such species on the Approved List under this Section as long as 

the Secretary believes that trade based on these standards would not result in harm 

to species in the wild." As previously stated, to keep species regularly bred in 

captivity off the Approved List because some of those species may be in illegal trade 

will actually serve to encourage illegal trade and perpetuate harm to those species in 

the wild. 

8 
132 

Congress is requested to clarify this problem either by direction to the 

Secretary to take appropriate action to delete the word "illegal" from the Regulations 

under the WBCA or by Congress inserting in (b)(l) of 106 of the WBCA the word 

"legal" before the word "trade". 

8. Amend Section 114(c) by deleting the same. 

As directed under Section 114(c), USFWS held an open meeting in 

Washington on April 7, 1995. It is aviculture's understanding that the USFWS has 

reported, or will soon report to Congress that government controlled marking 

programs and facility certification are not necessary. Aviculture strongly objected to 

these provisions in 1992 and their adoption in the WBCA has served as a source of 

stress and concern to aviculture since that time. Aviculture is relieved to hear of 

USFWS findings because aviculture has always believed these sections were 

impediments to a viable WBCA and to a good working relationship between the 

avicultural community and the USFWS. Aviculture is appreciative of the USFWS' 

direction in this area. 

9. Delete Section 115 in its entirety. 

Based on the above, we assume that the Secretary has determined that it will 

not be either helpful or of any productive purpose to require marking and 

recordkeeping of exotic birds already in captivity in the United States. In fact, this 

provision is unworkable and would deter captive breeding which is specifically 

prohibited in Section 115(b) in any event. Not only would this provision deter 

aviculture, but, if pursued, would involve the expense of millions of tax dollars for 

no productive purpose and bring unnecessary enforcement scrutiny to U.S. captive 

breeding efforts. The purpose of the WBCA was to conserve birds in the wild, not 

control breeding in the private sector. 

10. Add a new section to the WBCA providing that exotic birds hatched from 

parental breeding stock in the United States shall be deemed legal notwithstanding 

any other law, regulation or policy to the contrary. 

It is currently the policy of the USFWS that any exotic bird hatched in this 

country that represent progeny of illegally-imported parental stock, no matter how 

many generations ago, is in and of itself illegal and subject to seizure and 

confiscation proceedings. In other words, all domestically-hatched offspring of any 

illegally imported birds are also illegal. Under this policy, if parental stock were 

illegally imported and the offspring were a product of five generations of captive 

breeding in the United States or elsewhere, all of those captive-bred generations 

would be considered illegal by the USFWS. Thus, aviculturists attempting to buy 

even U.S. captive-bred birds still must be concerned that if originally imported 

parental stock of any prior generation were illegal, their domestically-bred birds 

could be subject to seizure and confiscation. Congress should effectively create a 

new section by amendment to the WBCA declaring that all birds documented as 

hatched of parental stock in the United States are legal notwithstanding the 

9 
133 

provision of any other law. The United States government grants citizenship to the 

children of illegal aliens born in the United States, yet the USFWS has determined 

as a matter of policy that exotic birds born in the United States of parental stock 

which may have been illegally imported are not legal. This policy is so preposterous 

that it could even pertain to originally imported birds deemed illegal due to 

inappropriate paperwork, improper shipment or other technical violations of law. 

There is no reasonable basis to have any uncertainty of the legal status of birds 

hatched from parents located in the United States. Such a policy punishes the U.S. 

hatched birds and their honest owners. 

11. Continue Congressional Oversight. 

Finally, Congress must retain oversight of the WBCA. Aviculture asks that 

in April of 1997 Congress again hold an oversight hearing on the WBCA. We ask 

that between now and that date Congress, through the staff of this Subcommittee, 

monitor the regulations and the progress of the USFWS in making P.L. 102-440 

function as the WBCA. 

CONCLUSION 

On behalf of aviculture in the United States, the AFA is honored to have had 

this opportunity to share its concerns about the WBCA with the Subcommittee. 

Aviculture wishes to have an effective, fair and properly functioning WBCA which 

will accomplish its goals. Programs for sustainable trade and aviculture are 

independent, but critically important to one another. We cannot trust one without 

the other to effectively save birds and each, if properly promoted, will have side 

benefits in addition to saving and preserving exotic avian species. Sustainable trade 

and giving value to trade in wild birds will be an incentive to preserve habitat. 

Aviculture and promoting the captive breeding of avian species will have the effect 

of creating sustainable gene pools of these species, allowing us to better understand 

their biology. Captive breeding of exotic birds in the U.S. reduces the demand on 

wild populations to supply trade. Additionally, the incentive to smuggle exotic 

birds is reduced with the rearing of each and every captive-bred exotic bird produced 

in a U.S. aviary. The avicultural organizations and people joining in this testimony 

on behalf of U.S. aviculture are themselves the stewards of exotic birds; they educate 

the public about how important it is that these birds be saved, both in captivity and 

in the wild; and they furnish pet birds for human companionship. We ask that 

Congress help us, aviculture, in our efforts to face this task. Make the WBCA a 

workable conservation and humanitarian tool, not one which obstructs 

conservation and humanitarian pursuits. 

Respectfully Submitted on Behalf of Aviculture 

By the American Federation of Aviculture, Inc. 

and by the Following Avicultural Organizations and 

Concerned Parties in Support of Aviculture 

10 
134 

A VICUL TURAL ORGANIZATIONS JOINING IN AFA'S TESTIMONY 

American Lory 

Society 

Pionus Breeders Association 

The Commercial 

Psittacine 

Breeders Model Aviculture 

Program 

New Mexico Bird Club, inc. Suncoast Av ian 

Society 

Aviary and Cage 

Bird Society of Southern Florida Chester County 

Pennsylvarua 

Bird Breeders Maine State Cage Bird Society Ventura County Bird Club Finch Society of San Diego County National Capital Bird Club Acadiana Bird 

Club, Inc. 

Orange County Bird Breeders 

Socl!iliB•y Bird 

Front Range Avian Society Santa Barbara Bird 

Club 

Imperial Bird Club Greater Pittsburgh 

Cage Bird Club Rose City Exotic Bird Club Southern Maryland 

Cage Bird Club Soutli Bay Bird Club Greater Brandon 

Avian Society 

Av;r:r and Cage 

:uth~~r%~f Reno Area A vi an Enthusiasts 

West Pasco Exotic Bird Club Delaware Valley Bird Club Arizona 

Avicultural 

Society 

Co=.~~~ Bird 

P~tto Cage Bird 

Erie c:ru Bird Club 

B~~C~bCage 

A~~ Society 

National Colorbred Association 

International Loriinae Society International 

Aviculturists 

Society 

Kenosha Exotic Bird Club Alaska Bird Club South Mississippi 

Cage Bird Society Central New York Cage Bird Club Bayou Bird Club Arizona Avian Breeders 

Association Gulf Coast Bird Club Greater Rochester Hook bill Association 

~~~Cage 

~g~bCage 

Central Kentucky 

Cage Bird Society Gainesville Bird Fanciers Bird Lovers of the Bluegrass, Inc. West Valley Bird 

Society Kentuckiana Bird 5ocietv of Aviculture Connecticut Association for Aviculture 

Ta~~ Bay Bird 

Sunshine State Cage Bird Society The Society fur Conservation in AvicultureCo~taAvian Soci •tv Sussex °County Exotic Bird Club Central Aorida Bird Breeders Inc. Central jersey Bird Club 

Northeastern 

Avicultural 

Society 

Alamo Exhibition Bird Club Contra Coast Aviculture 

Society 

11 

Aorida Federation of Avian Societies (>SO Clubs) International 

Parrotlet Society Waxbill and Parrot Finch Society 

p~t~f~:al Society 

Central jersey Bird Club Central California 

Avian Society Real Macaw Parrot 

Club 

Delaware Valley Bird Club 

Oklahoma Cage Bird Society York Area Pet Bird Club 

Town and Country Feathered Friends Cleburne Bird Society 

Rocky Mountain Society Alamo Exhibition 

Bird Club, lnr. CreamGty 

Feathered Friends West Florida Avian 

Society 

Bird Education and Kaffee Klatch Socitv Misso:;;; Cage Bird 

Association 

s.s~Bird 

Gateway Parrot Club 

Raleigh Durham Caged Bird SoCiety 

T~~~cfl~fub Tropical Bird Fanciers 

North West Ohio Exotic Bird Club Central Oklahoma Bird Club Feathered Friends Society 

Madison Area Cage Bird Association of Wisconsin 

s.ccl~blley 

Arizona Aviculture Society " 

Exotic ca Bird Society~New England 

National Finch and Softbill Society 

Society of Parrot Breeders and Exhibitors American Cockatiel Society 

L'Oisellerie de L"Estrie of Quebec 

Rhode Island Pet Bird Club Hookbill Hobbyists of Southern California 

~;;.~rr:~ i~~ Society 

A viculturists of Greater Boston, 

Inc. Central Oklahoma Bird Club Northwest Bird Club 

Foothill Bird Fanciers 

Ari.:zona Seed crackers Society Kansas Aviculture Society, Inc. Parrot Breeders Association of 

Virginia 

Tr~'::! ~'2lub Gold Country Bird Society 

Mf;:dclu~y Cage 

cac~~ a~tS.~tin Golden Gate Avian Society 

Capitol City Bird Society, Sacramento Texas Bird Breeders 

Fanciers 

Association Camden Mississippi Bird Club Redwood Empire 

Cage Bird Club Nortlieastem Pennsylvania 

Cage Bird Club Central Pennsylvania 

Cage Bird Club Federation of 

Pennsylvania 

Aviculturists ""-Lakes Ca Il'ud Associa~n 
135 

A VICULTURISTS AND COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS WHICH HAVE 

REQUESTED TO BE RECORDED IN SUPPORT OF AFA'S TESTIMONY 

Mountain View Aviary The Feather Fancy 

Sybil's Aviary & 

~uf~~ Endowm!nt 

A.B. C. Bird Center Pacific Bird & 

Sup_ply Co., Inc. 

Morrung Star Aviary 

Parrots of Pine Island 

Pearly Gates Aviaries 

~G'Z~kers 

Fl~~ Bird rstrom2 

Lannom Farms Blynn Sanford Inc. Bernies Birds V.I.P. Aviaries 

Ceasar Enterprise 

Acrey Aviary PrOducts 

Honda Baby Parrots 

Pat's Bird House O.P.I's 

Robert John, D.V.M. Flo's Fancy Fli2hts 

Canary Land t!ird Farm Swelland's Cage & 

J&WX!riaries 

DLProducts 

Bird City U.S.A. MG Industries Bird 's Haven, Inc. 

Parrot Express Inc. On Wings, Inc. 

Robbies Feed & 

N~~%~~d 

D·;'l.fcl~~~ Animal Medical Center, Lake Charles 

Backwoods 

Aviaries Avian Acres Chris Davis Animal Behaviorist 

R.L. Enterprises Bess Breeder's 

Elain's Originals 

Verde Squirts Avianes 

Casa de Papaguyous 

Majestic Manzanita L&D Sales Bird Works So. C.A. 

The Bud, Bird and 

w~if:'t=els Mr. Reynoso Bird 

Factory 

Wings and Fins D&M Bird Ranch 

Smelt Feed & Pet Suppl)flnc. Deedee Grizzard Luv Them Birds Inc. African Queen 

Aviary Carolina Cage 

ln~lPet& Supply Inc. Zoological Bird 

Br~;,"ine Aviary Fine Feathered 

Friends Birds by Veta 

The Bird Lady 

12 

Johnson's J=gle Red Color Canaries Feathers Plus 

Butler's Breeders 

Wee Bird Farm 

Cairns Ente~rises 

The Exotic B~rd 

House Aviary 

John Singleton Breeder The Feather Tree Marquez Feather Farm Coast to Coast Avian IV Beak Boutique 

Rubi Birds Vales Aviaries 

Precious Cargo John & Linda's Aviary W.A.W. Aviaries 

The Feather Fantasy Out on a Limb 

Aviary Sun Seed Company, Inc. West Esplanade 

Vetennary Clinic 

C&DAviary 

2:!,~~~!. Exotics, Inc. Tucker Farms Birds by Veta Too The Macaw Project Gonzele's Pet Shop 

San Juan Aviary 

English's Parakeets 

~a! Gardens A Vl3J\ Magic Stuff for Brrds Ruthledge Aviaries Golden Wing Ranch 

Robert A. Berry Assoc. St. Francis Aviaries 

Flights of Fancy 

Sonj's Tropics Casa de Papagallos Ortman Inc. Bowman's Birds of 

Paradise 

The Pet Ranch 

Skyline Garden Avian Research Landvater's Land of 

Birds Mar's Animal Farm 

H~.:;:~vi~~~~ (HARI) Canada 

Derutis Bart (Breeder) WilliamRHorton 

(Breeder) 

Suzanne V. Tyson, DVM 

Joe Freed's Avian 

A~~~ly 

Clinic, Pam Hendrickson, DVM 

Lyon Electric 

~~Ju':ritional Products 

Pretty Bird International, Inc. 
136 

SUPPLEMENTAL LIST OF SUPPORTERS 

Avicultural Ortanizations 

American Cockatiel Society, Inc. 

Asiatic Parrot Society 

Dallas Cage Bird Society 

Bird Owners of Texas 

Central Coast Avicultural Society 

Motor City Bird Breeders, Inc. 

Comorate and Private Ouanizations 

Parrot Peak Preserve 

Avian Acres 

Aves International 

Kaytee Products, Inc. 

Voren's Aviaries 

Voren Research Institute for 

Psittacultural Science, Inc. 

Florence's Aviaries 

DL&J Birds 

Kenilworth Aviaries 

Tropaquatic's 

Animal House 

Ishmael Slemp 

Vickie Hester 

Tommy Dunsmore 

C75S4_1 .00C 
137 

HENRY J. HYDE 

JUDICIARY 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

(![:ongress of tbt ltntteb ~tates 

J.Jousr of l\rprrsrntatibrs 

ma!IIJmgton. l3£ 20515-1306 

Honorable Jim Saxton Chairman 

September 27, 1995 

Resources Subcommttee On Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

H1-805 O'Neill Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Saxton: 

2110 R.o.veu~ .. HouSE OFFICE BLi>~-D•NG 

WASHING TO ... DC 20515-1306 

(202J 225--4561 

I am submitting a letter from my constituent, Mr. Frank CUrie, 

President of Zoological Birds Import, to be made part of the hearing on the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. 

Mr. CUrie outlines some of the abuse and harassment he has had to endured in legally importing birds for his business. It was never the intention of the Wild Bird Conservation Act to punish law 

abiding citizens, but Mr. CUrie's experience proves that something went wrong and we need to fix it. 

It is my sincere hope you will find his contribution to this hearing 

valuable, and I appreciate your considering Mr. CUrie's statement for the record. 

HH:nms 

r::u_AL Henry~~ r-
138 

OIV. 0~ BJ~n·s HAVtN,lHC. 

ZOOLOGICAL BIRDS IMPORT U.$.D.A. Al'f'ROVED QUARANTINE STATION 

11~55 WAVELAND AVE 

FRANKI.JN I"AHK,ILL1N015 60131 

li . S . /1. 

September 27 . I ?9S 

TEL.700-9~1-862~ 

FAX 700-~~1-7392 

1lonorab1e Congressman Henry Hyde 

50 E. Oak Street 

Addison. JL 60101 

1~E : lUi. l'ish and Wildlife 

Leucr of Complaint 

Congressman llydc: 

MAlLlNG AOOAESS : 

371 ROMAN ROAD 

ELMHUAST,lL G01~G 

I am CEO of Dircl's Haven Incorporated, located in Elmhurst, Ulinois. with stations also 

1ocau~.d in Franklin l'ark. Illinois. 'Jlle company is approved by U.S.D.A. standard~. also licensed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Savice. 

1. : In January. 1992, Mr. John Ded:er, U.S.t'. & W agent, Chi~ago. Illinois said 

directly t(lthis writer "that if it was up to me (him).llll..binh would sta~.ikl. ... 

Also, on another occasion, Mr. John Decker, agent of the U.S.F & W said "tie would do 

laU.D..as. a diiCt'J threat a~;1inst my bu\,iness and liyclihood . 

2. On January 1 !C. 199::!, he caused search warTants to be servt'd upon ow two business 

lo.:ations and a rcsiden~e . None of those warrants were signed by a judge. Attempts by 

our anorney to obtain copies of the affidav t~ behind those scan:h warrams. from the ~:ourt 

(i)cs, were fmitlcss. IC;I!.Iing us to believe none ever existe.d. 

3. In January. 1992, n~erll John Decker. U.s.r-. & W impounded 3 shipments of bi.rds from 3 

difl"trcnt n>unuies,qucstionint; the authcntidty of dcx;umentation without consuhint; the 

U.S.F. & W. supervisory pcrsonnd. Thuc. 'locumcnts were issued by the wiWlili: 
139 

mjn!strlcs of those forc:ien countries as br:inr anthMtlc., and without probably cause, 

based on opinion only. 

Congressman Hyde, on my own initiative I contacted the minisuies of three 

foreign countries for re-verification of doc.:uments is.~ued by them to be forwarded, via 

FAX, to agent Decker of the Chicago Office, which was done, and after five weeks of 

impoundment of the shipment, without-cause, they were certified and released. 

This action, of unaccountability. of Agent Decker, caused my company great stress 

and market-loss wjthput cause. 

4. ln February, 1992, without cause, the Immigration and Naturalization Service puid us a 

vi~it to check our employees stan1s. They brought with them l.D.s ~.:ollected by agent 

John Decker and/or U.S.F. & W. agents fror.1 our employees durin& a search conducted 

on January 18, 1992. There wa~ nothing in the search warrants to autboriz.e seizing of 

employee's documentation of status. I funher state that most of our employees have been 

with the company over 10 years. 

5. In May, 1992, without cause, six shipments of birds from 5 different countries were 

imponed by our company. ~hortly after receiving these shipments, agent John Decker -

on behalf of the U.S.F. & W. sent a letter stating that the U.S.F. & W. is refusing 

clearance for all six shipments. The reason stated at that time was: "Documentation does 

not uppear to be authentic." l11is OCCWTence took three months, from the arrival date of 

the birds, to clear. before the birds were released. 

6. In May, 1992, agent John Decker came into our quarantine facility accompanied by 2 

individuals whom he identified as U.S. F.&. W personnel from Washington D.C. 
140 

Tile 2 individuals were finally identified as impostors, environmentalists with an 

Envirunrnental Investigation Acency. This agem:y is headquanered in London. 

England and i5 well known a• "'long time advocates for the total ban on importation of 

exotic birds ... 

7. During 1992, several shipments of bird~ went through fuU double U.S.F. & W. 

inspections, again without specific cause. identification and under misreprescnt.ation by the 

inspecting agency. 

8. During 1992. several shipmeniS of birds went through a full double U.S.F. & W inspection 

without cause, in New York and Chicago. In no instance were any violations found or 

documentation questionable. All of these inspections were without legitimate reason and 

the company charged for all of the above unnecessary procedures. 

9. In May, 1992, aa;ent John Decker pcr~onally service a subpoena to appci1T before a 

Grand Jury covering Ba.~ler Airlines in Wisconsin, which was initiated by agent John 

Decker of the U.S.F. & W. Again. there was no grounds for indicuncnt. The subpocn2 

also covered all business records. Therefore, the airline severed our business relationship 

and will no longer carry our birds. 

10. From January 1992, throua;h 1994 each time I returned from a businc~s Dip I was 

subjected to a thoroughly conducted search at the airport. There were times when U.S .F. 

& W asents searched my lussagc and briefcase AITER customs had 'ompleted their 

search. The paper~ in my briefcase, aanount of monies carried. etc., had all been gone 

through by agents of the U.S.P. & W. 1be.;~ searches hlwc been documented by the U.S. 

Customs service. 

II. In 1994, while in Africa, I sent a packa.~:e of wood carvin&s valued at $47 5.00, which was 
141 

documented by the U.S. Custom~ service. The package was sent to Chicago but wuheld 

by the U.S.F. &. W for 14 days. Two valuable African ma~ks were so roughly handled 

that they were destroyed. 

12. We import live food (mealworms) for our birds from Belgium. Every shipment is held by 

U.S.F. & W. for Inspection at the airport, even though this type of shipment falls under the 

aegis of the U.S.D.A. and NOT the U.S. F. & W. Mealworms require refrigeration but 

must be left out for U.S.F. & W. inspection. By the rime the U.S.F. & W. released these 

shipments they are ruined from overheating. Each shipment i~ valued at11pprox.imately 

$1,500.00. 

13. In July, 1993, U.S.F. & W succeufully stopped American Airlines from carrying our bird 

shipments to the United States. Previously we had used American for 15 year~ without 

any problems. 

During the current year. 1995, the U.S.F. & W. is applying pressure to our present 

currier, Subena Airlines for the nme reason. 

14 . In December, 1992. without cause or justification, we received citations for 2 documents 

left behind by airlines in a transit city, but forwarded immediately on the very next flight to 

the United States. This type of occurrence is beyond our conttol, yet the company was 

lined $1,000.00 per incident. 

15. In January, 1994. citations alleging violations of lATA shi{'ping rules were served for a 

total of $5,000.00. 

It became apparent at that time that the U.S.F & W published in the Federal 

Rcgi<ter only, their regulations for shipping live animals, WITHOIIT notifying our 

company of any changes. The ll.S.F. & W. then decided to enforce these regulations even 
142 

though we had not been notified of changes. 

16. In April, 1994, agent John Decker initiated new citation~ again~t the company for alleged 

violations for the humane tran~pon of live birds. These citations were listed and went 

back to .1222. The total cost for these unfair allegations was $18,500.00. 

17. In April, I 994, agent John Decker again initialed new citations for alleged violation for the 

humane transport of live birds, costing $5.350.00. Agent Decker alleged the company 

"imported 1000 finches without proper documentation," Again, the wildlife ministry of 

the exporting country sent a FAX to agent Decker stating "3000 pairs which a,em 

Decker jnstitutrd as reading 3000 bead." 

18. In March, 1994, citations for shipping violations on shipments arriving on October 15, 

1993, total was $2,000.00. 

19. On August 10, 1995, the same type of citation was issued for shipping violations on 3 

separate shipments imported on 4/30/94,5/12/94, 3n/95, total cost $13,000.00. 

20. On August I I, 1995, citations were again issued on a ~hipment from Tanzania on October 

3, 1994, totaling $5,600.00. 

This particular citation was totally without justification or cause, in fact being a full 

fabrication by the U.S.F. & W. NOTE: the citation was i~sued for a shipment supposedly 

from Tanzania, East Africa, of a smull parro; which only lives in South America. 

TDTALCOSTTQVATE· $5115000 

IN SUMMARY: Please note that every shipment to date has been questioned, held up, 

or harl citations i~~ued by the U.S.F. & W. for alleged viohllions: These continue despite every 

effort being made by the company to comply with U.S.F. & W. regulations (even when we are not 

notified what these regulation~ consist of and are not notified of change.~). Hearings requested by 
143 

the company and held by the U.S.F. & W. have ALL resulted in higher charges being issued 

against IL 

The company has been lmportina: exotic birds into the Unilcd States for the past I 3 year~ 

and has complied with all regulations (when we are notified what they are and when change~ have 

been made). I myself !ravel continuously to personally oversee the exporting country's shipping 

stand~~rds and procedures to en~ure they ompa~y with United States &tandard.~ . 1 also make 

every effort to personally accompany these shipments whenever po55ible to doubly ensure that all 

standards for the humane uutment of imported animals are earried out. 

I feel that the con~pany is beinc harassed by the U.S.F. & W. and is being specifically 

targeted for unwarranted and unsubstantiated fines and auenrion. These actions by the U .S.F. & 

W. have placed the company in an untenable position of tryina to do business under impossible 

conditions. The U.S.F. A W. is the only federal &JICIICY that has caused acute financial and 

emotional stress to the company, as well as eliminating 23 other bird imponations throusJtottt the 

llnitcd States. 

Your aucntion and investiaation into this in1portant matter would be gre11tly appreciated. 

Your support of the American busine~man is well-known and we turn to you for help in this 

maner. 

--~~ . .:::: .. e --r "rAn cUric,r ~---
144 

14 NOVEMBER 11194 

Pwblishtd by ·1M l•t,.>I<AiioMIIIUd/ifl .,....,,,...., Coosotli-. its --n, tw/111pp0nU., itutit•t' 

S forms shocking 

liaison with EIA 

For several Octcaations \hM witoc.ased 

it, the.,.... COCII'--- holdjl>llllly.., 

lhe.)lcod of the us crn:s clckptloo oncl 

two NOO'• on Friday came u 1 arcatllld 

undoutundable sho<:k. 

The ostc .. ible puiJlOSC of the conf.,.nc:e 

was 10 infonn the media on e(oru. to im· 

p<OV< Clllorccmtnt o/ ceres. Bllleafan:tmcnl is IIIIUICf for which the CJ'Il:.S Secretarial, not NGO'i, is responsible, and it 

~uii.J h.-ve been much more 

opproprialC,Ihcrdorc, for the US 10 hold 

this prc:t>s <activity in conjunction with lbc 

ecret-.ri"''· The perccpt.ion lhat lhe two 

. tOO's which IOOir: pon IUC playinJ I ~bll.lanlive role m ulrain; which Jhould be con· 

ductcl.l !llricll)' beawccn CITES and Panics 

to the Con'lcnliun •c1s u tJisturbin& prcccdcm and ll.huws a lack or rcspcc1 for the 

sovcn:i1:n ria.:hu of 1hc Mcmbcr-Sutc.s. 

One of th~o:s,c: two NCO's. the EnvaronmcntallnvhllaJ<alionAatcncy (ElA), hou hild 

il SC:\'t:rc nt:a.:oative impact on 1he all"~rs of 

Cl'll:S. Perhaps the Heo<J of the US dotcaotion won not awiU'C of \he many inap· 

propd:.uc ac\ions taken by \he ElA such as 

the (ollowln': 

•In J9M9, &he E!A Uclibcra~l)' hM! critical doc:umenli rrom • Pany lO \he Con vena ion ~·hich. 1f communicated imrrw.diatell' 

could h01'¥'C led to •mporte~m enforcement 

ac1 iom.. Could this h:..ve bc:c:n done if' the 

L'UIIl.,p. J 

Surprenante Alliance 

EU/EIA 

P

l ............ ...-q .. __ voodtedl, • Ia oot1ltnnce de ,._ 

- conjoinlemOnl por.le Chef do Ia 

Dtltplion doa EU et doul ONOs ODIW 

clloqo*s. 

I.e but tviden1 do ceue conltrcO<C do 

p!ast tloit d'iolormot lcs mldias IW Ia 

olfolllen cours 1ftn d'omtliorcr Ia mise ca 

opplicllion do 11 crres. ccue mise en.,. 

plication est Ia raponsabilitt do Ia CITES 

ct non ecllc des ONGs. II await a6_ pit 

col\itqucnt. plus apptoprii que ta EU 

licnMnl ccuc ac1ivitt! de preuc 

~jolnacmcnt avec k Sec..w.riet. Lc rOk 

subiWtliel jout P• lcs dou1 ONGo dans 

unc .,.airc rctcvant 51fkwncnt de Ia CITES 

ct du Panles ~ Ia Convention, erN un 

prf:ddcnt inquittan• c1 dtmontre u1 

inupccl ~pour la ~lS souvcrlimck::l 

f.IJIS·Mcmbfe~. 

L'unc de cu deux ONOa. 

.. 1'£nvironmcntal lnaclli&cncc A&chli:y" 

(ElA), a cu un impM:t UU Maalif sur tM 

affairco de Ia CITES. Le Cbcf de 

Dtl6pllon doa EU o'tllit pcut.W. poa .. 

courant du nombrcusea atlivil'• "'"-*' praliqu4c• pot I'EIA. ICIIcl qoc: 

• En 1989, I'EIA a dtliWrf:mcDI 

dbsimult des documcnu tits imporlllllll 

une. Pank: li 111 Convention. Si tel doc• 

menu av1ien1 tst c:ommuDiq•ti 

imrM:dialcmcnl, pcul·~lrt: auraicnl·ila 

COlli .• p. J 

II Grahame Webb on Swifllt!ls 

\I Doug bullerworlh and Eugene Lapointe on l\)e Minke 

·Relacl6n escandalosa 

entre los EEUU 

yla EIA 

P .. variu de&eaacioMs que f...uon 

-p.l& confmncla do piCIISIIque 

luc diriJicl& el vicrnes conjuniiiiiOIIIC pot 

c1 JeCc do Ia dolcpci6ot do c11a do 1os 

I!£UU y do clos ONGs llcl(l como un 11"" 

J ....... cnsiblo SUSIO. 

LII111Cnc:i6ot _..,.. do Ia coolen:ncoa 

Ill de in£onnar a los medioa aobre lu~ 

afucnos de mejorar I~ aptk:eci6n de I<~ 

arES. Pcro Ia aplicac:t6ft C1 U .. IIUDIO baju 

II rapoodlllilidod del Socnlltilclo do Ia 

an!S J 110 de Ill ONOs J pot consir;uicntc 

hubiera sido mucho mU aprupiado si llb 

E£UU hubieran diriaido esllactividad ck 

prensa juntamenac con cl Secrcwiado. L, 

pcrupci6n que las dos ONGs pfcst:nh:~ 

caM ~mpcbndo un papci5USlanc:ial en 

asuatos que debcdan scr 1ratado~ 

culur.ivament por Ia CITES )' lu paneli 

de li Convcnci6n di6 un precedente 

illquictanlt 'I mues1ra una raltl dt rcspeto 

por los dcrechos soberanoa de los 

Miolnbooo Estodos. 

Una de_.. do& ONOt.. la "'Environmcn· 

lallnvcodpllonAacatJ"(EIA). ha leflillo 

Ul Jflft impacto neptiVO IObn lol UU.ftlC» 

dolaCITES.1WveuiJeledolldolcpco6n 

de toa EEUU no cstabli consc;cn•c de las 

- mcdidu iftlplllpildaslomadas po< 

&a EIA, como las s.i&uicmcs: 

• En 19¥9, Ia EIA cscondi6 a rwopOsno 

doc:umemos imponantes a una Pane de h1 

ConvcnciOn que, si hubieun s1do 

transmilidos innlcdiatam.:nle, hubieran 

podido heber conducido 1 accio.nu 

import.antt:l de •phcoci6n E.s po~iblc: q~ 

cont., p. J 

J);sne;6v7Cb ;1-T CITES ./1.,-" • I _,.c-, I -::-1 r. /" / I,., I / /!?I' 
/._,,...,.., /s~':'!'>~lbo~illlpllcalllllov· · yllltolpiiCIICY--11 

._,ut far lbolllnlvol olaapodea. Tbil 

is lilnplistic 111111 iiiCCimiCL Vuillioo such 

as IIIII detoctcd with JCIICUC filltaprint· 

ioa~rowalsao.__lcvcl 

of IUIItle DNA ..n.dootbel-IDdiviclloals wilbio a species. wblcb il coatilually 

boiol pinecllllllllost. Tbc pal . 

USIBIA.-..-,_,_1 

i!IICIUI ol publicity and fllad-nilia& for 

EIA? 

• For several months Ia 1919, lbo £lA 

sp<ad ICtlotd. thoup IIDfOUIIdcd occu· satioas, incluclina a cbatac ol comaptioa 

of the CITES Secretarial aod its stal 

members; 

• The JRlUP went on 10 spread thacaccu· 

sations to tho me4iali0Wld tho wMdllllll 

publish tbcm in a boot; 

• Outioc this same period, the £lA •tole 

communications documc.n&a between the 

Sccrcwiat and a Pany 10 &he Convention 

aueodln¥ a ClTES meeUna in Bouwana; 

• Prior 10 the lostiWC mocdaai!IA look part in a meJot rundn.ialna cion on 

wbaiCf (with Cllll paJC ada ia a mi;or US 

oewspaper 111111 tbc IDiemltloGal Herald 

Tnbllfte), matina false lCCUillions of II· 

legal behavior by Norway 111111 iooppropriat<:ly criticizing Vtee President Oore 

and the US AdminiJtration. 

As a reminder of this pr= ooofcrenee, 

panieip.n" of COP 9 IR left with a mon-

....,.. paper "batomcw" showina the eonuibutionio rccei~ for fund.railiAI enforce· 

ment eft'ocu. AI a Boy Seoul conYention 

or UU and crafiS fair, sucll a display milht be appropriuc, b•n hen h n:PfOICnu a d.i· 

rect affront to the dKcnc:y and respect 

which such ina.eraovcmmenl&l rnccunas s'-ld be accorded. 

or coor-sc 111cn ...., cnron:emcnt p<Oblems within ~ ucS Ny mu:s& be ld· 

dteoscd. But this mua be ia accordaoce 

within the provioions ol tbc lclU oflhc Coa-

•enlioo. II rawc also be dOGe the rip way. 

.nd by lllc rip people. · 

CITES COP9 Fr. UUD£1U)ALE 

145 

oftbilv-IS-IDibooUmYol 

oflbo-'<L 

ID........_ dlepeotlc_.,_.ttl 

tlooUS.,._a!ll-oaaiCricottllimplistic asumplioallboll COII&Ide< 10 be 

fundamelltally Oawod. If implcmoDICd, 

they lltdy - rault ia specica beiDa a1locuod 10 tho ~ on tho bosis ttl 

dtarocteristics dial ..... nocbina ll all 10 

do wldl rislt of utitlctioa. 

IUIBIA--up.l 

pamlld' __ ...,.,......miiCOil 

application? 

• pcadoat plusicoars moil ea 1919,1'EIA a 

ftpoacludei_IRI..._ec 

lofooMea contre lc Secrtwiac de Ia 

0TES CIIOII pctiOIUid, ycompris ceiiCI 

de conuplion; 

•le an>upc a cootinui!l difuocr CCIIICCII· 

satiou aux "**ias de IOUICS leo ponies 

du-* or lei a publides d&os un Uvrc; 

• durutlamtmop«iodc.I'EIAuubdlilt 

des docwnc:nls du Secrt1ariat de Ia 

CI'I1lS dcllin6l l uac Panic l Ia ConvCIUion ponlcipaal & .,. Jiunioo de Ia 

CI'I1lS au--

• L'EIA a panici&M. avaat Ia demlko 

-ioa da I'IWC, l uac aJpnccaqua 

__..de foods our lei balelaa (- paao ootitrc dau quelques ,iounoalll 

lmporl&nlldel EU Cldans l'lruemalioaal KmkiTnbuac)eafaisantdeC.U.... ... 

cusarioassuriasoit-d~Mm~ 

111~1&1 de Ia Horvtae Cl eo critiquaol 

ouvencmeDl le Voce-Praidenl Oore el l'ldminiaualioo des EIJ; 

Ea eomrnano..tioa de ccac coot-..:. depRU<,IelpanicipanuauCOP9..,.~ 

un rnorwveux "baramkn oa papiet'" · 

1aiS10 

pour Ia 

cau-ovoir 

c:ampap~e 

lei 

de 

coouibudons 

fonds relali .. 

~ l ccao miN: en applic;a\ion. Lon d'une coavcolion de jouDCS Scouts aur uno cqJOSiti011 d'anCid'anisanat, ...,.,.llcdtmoo- aunh P" tint appridtc.. mail, daDI lc 

~===.: reacontresllllefoaou~ 

Bica • il y .. IIUcia de Ia OTES del probltmcs de mile CD applicat1011' qoi 

dol-fU'O - - lolala ... i doll au. fait - ... dispooilioal clu ICliC de Ia Collvenlioo. de Ia boaDII maalae • por lea boancl pctiOODC&. 

CONSEll~AnON TIUBUNE 

EBUU I BlA COKrliJ- u ,'. 1 

ata mcclida fue _,.;. ca ~~~ de I> 

publicidad y Ia rooolo<;c.itln de (Qlldoo pllll 

Ia !!lA? ; I . I 

• DwuiC yaric£ ~ .. 1919. Ia ElA 

difuodla acusaclop~l J!IVU pero 

IDfuadadu, incluy ~do uo C&IJO de 

001111pci6n conu. cl ~ccrcwiado de Ia 

crn;s y .... emplcac1'!'; . ; 

• El crupo proecdi6 11 difundir C$lU 

ICUSICiODtoaloc- pard tnllndo y 

apublicarlucaunU"f; : 

• Duno~e ciiiC mismo .,;.-. II EIA robu 

doc::umcntos 4c co~m~nicaci6o couc: el SocJecariadoy 11n1 Panjode la~vcnci6n 

==;a Ia ~que • _reuota en ! . 

•-'- de Ia llltima rcupl6n cit I_& IWC. Ia 

ElA 1om6 pane en pn esruorzo P•" .-lec:ci6a de f~ pon tal balle.,., 

(con anuocios a lodf plan• en varios 

peri6dicos principales.de loo EEUU yen 

ellolCnlllional HcraldTribuae)lw:icndo 

(alllsiCIISICiones de~ ilcaal por 

Honlep y criticando iJIIIICOPil4aJnenlt cl 

Vice Prulclcnte Gore -j laAdll!iniaU'OCi6n 

<lolosEEUU. ' 

Como \&R rte~ de C$\a confcrucia de prcnaa, loa panicp&lltcs cit Ia COP9 -···-·-depapcl 

moacnndolu contibuelooc& recibidas par• fiUDCiat es!uc:rzos de tplicaei6ft. En 11noa 

-vcnoi6a de boy ICOUIS o uqa feria de ane. una tal ciemoaswac16n podrfa scr optoplada, pcroaqul,._.... pafr.,.. 

- ••• dcccncia y al JeapoiO- a tala n:unioaa illlapbcmalcl.l . 

Nawfalme.arc cxls~ca probJcaw de apllcaci6a eo Ia C1111S y dcj>Cdln scr 

dllculldo&. Sin omlluJO a10 111 dcae q110 - aca4n laa dilpoalcionoo clpi!Uto de laConvenci6n y de .... IIWlC3cortWO y 

por Ia lentc apropiada; 
110 1 Founeenth Succt , NW 

Suite I~ 

W:lShington. DC 1000') 

~k~ 102-681JH ()O 

hx 102-6fi2-ll 3 1 

146 

Testimony of Defenders of WlldiHe 

on Reauthorization of the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

of the House Resources Commmee 

September 28, 1995 

Introduction 

On behaH of our 11 8,000 members and supporters, Defenders of 

Wildlije urges the members of this subcommittee to support reauthorization 

of the Wild Bird Conservation Act without any weakening amendments. 

Defenders played an active role in the development of this important 

conservation law, participating in a dialogue with the pet industry and other 

interested groups. We helped draft more stringent legislation - supported 

by a broad coalition - that would have banned most wild bird imports 

immediately. Instead, the WBCA was adopted as a carefully-crafted 

compromise. It phased out the most problematic species in trade while 

allowing some imports to continue, subject to reasonable restrictions. We 

continue to support this moderate approach and urge you to not reopen 

the debate via any substantive amendments. 

For the past three years, the Wild Bird Conservation Act has 

protected hundreds of wild bird species from excessive commercial 

importation to the United States. At the same time, the law has promoted 

captive breeding of birds by avicunurists in the U.S., and has benefitted 

American consumers by ensuring quality, healthy pet birds. By all 

accounts, the law has been an unqualified success. 
147 

The .Purpose of the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

Large-scale commercial trade in exotic birds has had a devastaling ellect upon 

wild bird populations worldwide. Excessive trade and habltal destruction together 

threaten more than 1 ,000 bird species with extinction. In the past two decades alone, 

international trade has been recorded for more than 2,600 of the approximately 9,600 

known bird species, with trade levels estimated at two to five million birds annually 

[1). Large birds such as parrots and macaws, a major component of the international 

trade, are particularly vulnerable to overh81118Sting because of their. slow reproductive 

rates [2). 

Problems of overharvesting are compounded. by high mortality and Collection 

methods that destroy important habltal. Up fo 80% of birds die before reaching their 

final destination, as hundreds of birds are frequently crammed into smell crates 

without sufficient food, water, or ventilation [3). To collect these birds, trees are often 

cut down or nest cavities opened with machetes, resulting in permanent habitat 

destruction (4). 

Prior to the Wild Bird Conservation Act, the United States was the world's 

largest importer of wild birds, importing more than 7.4 million birds between 1980 

and 1991 . This lucrative market overwhelmed many international attempts to control 

the bird trade, including export bans by range nations. 

Unlike most policy issues which involve complex trade-oils and technical 

details, the problems of the wild bird trade fortunately can be largely solved by 

tapping a readily-ayailable source of birds -those bred in captivity in the United 

States. By restricting imports 'of wild:.CSught birds from foreign countries, the ACt 

promotes both good conservation and U.S.-based industry as part of the solution. 

Legislative History of tha Wild Bird Conservation Act 

The current law emerged from two separate bills introduced in 1991 which 

addressed the trade problem in different ways. The Exotic Bird Conservation Act 

(H.R. 2541 , S. 1218) would have gradually reduced some imports over a five-year 

period but still allowed a significant amount of trade to continue. This bill was 

supported by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (representing the major 

commercial bird importers), the American Federation of Aviculture, the World Wildlife 

Fund, and others. In contrast, the Wild Bird Protection Act (H.R. 2540, S. 1219), 

supported by Defenders and more than 200 conservation, animal protection, and 

scientific organizations, would have immediately banned all importation of wild birds 

and required marking of exotic birds already present in the UnHed States. After 

months of hard-fought negotiation, a compromise was developed that entailed 

significant concessions from both sides. The compromise basically allowed 

2 
148 

continued imports of some species while restricting imports on other species 

regulated under international treaty and subject to more intense trade pressures. The 

resulting legislation, known as the Wild Bird Conservation Act (H.R. 5013), was 

unanimously approved by Congress, and was signed into law by President George 

Bush on October 23, 1992. 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act protects wild birds by restricting the 

importalion of bird species listed in the three Appendices to CITES. The Act placed 

an immediate ban on ten of the most imperiled species and established one-year 

import quotas for the remainder. Once these quotas expired in October 1993, the Act 

effectively banned all importation of CITES-listed bird species, w~h exceptions for 

scientific research, zoological breeding or display, approved cooperative breeding 

programs, and a "clean lisf' of species for which trade is known to consist entirely of 

captive-bred individuals. Ten bird families, such as guineafowl, turkeys, pheasants, 

and ducks, are also exempt from the Act's provisions, as are all birds native to the 

United States. As an add~ional measure of protection, the Act authorizes the Fish 

and Wildlne Service to prohib~ the importation of species not listed under CITES; to 

date, however, the Service has chosen not to do so. 

Success of the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

Since passage of the WBCA in 1992, the volume of birds imported to the 

United States has declined significantly. Throughout the 1980s, the Un~ed States 

imported an average of 700,000 birds annually. According a series of reports based 

on these import figures, captive-bred birds accounted for approximately nine to 13 

percent of the total, with the remainder taken from the wild [5). Figures for 1994 are 

still incomplete, but analysis of the available data indicates a total of 80,000 birds 

imported, approximately 45 percent of which were captive bred. This reduction in 

trade is primarily due to the decrease in the importation of wild-caught birds, which 

made up the majority of the trade prior to 1992. By restricting imports, the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act has successfully reduced trade pressures on wild bird populations. 

For example, biologists have noted the importance of the WBCA to conservation of 

the red-fronted macaw, as 80 percent of the international trade in this species was 

destined for the Un~ed States [6]. 

The Act has been a success for bird retailers and breeders in the Un~ed States 

as well. Despite predictions to the contrary, the sale of pet birds in the United States 

has flourished since the passage of the Wild Bird Conservation Act. An annual retail 

survey published by Pet Product News indicates that sales of pet birds and bird 

products have nearly doubled in the past four years, from $277 million in 1991 to 

$543 million in 1994. Even prior to the WBCA, many pet stores, from major chains 

such as Petsland, PET sMART, and Dockter Pet Centers to independent stores such 

as the American Bird Company in Northern Virginia, sold only captive-bred birds. Pet 

3 
149 

bird dealers readily acknowledge that captive-bred birds are more tame and healthy 

than w:ld-caught birds and therefore make better pets. Wild-caught birds, however, 

generally cost less because captive breeding is an expensive and labor-intensive 

process. By preventing the importation of wild-caught birds, the WBCA uses market 

forces to shift consumer demand to professional breeders. New York's 1984 law 

banning the sale of wild birds produced similar results: with the cheaper wild birds 

removed from the market, the state's bird breeders thrived [7] . 

While a few spokesmen for the bird-breeding industry have expressed 

continued opposition to the WBCA, our experience shows that their rhetoric is not 

matched by individual bird breeders and pet store owners. There is a wide variety 

and diversity of opinion within the aviculture community about the merits of the Act. 

Although many of the aviculturists we contacted admitted confusion and 

misunderstandings about the Act's provisions, almost all expressed strong support 

for the Act. Specifically, numerous individuals indicated that there was little reason to 

continue to import birds for the commercial pet market, as the number of birds 

already in the United States is sufficient to meet demand. In fact, for a number of 

endangered parrot species, more birds exist in capt[vity in the United States than 

remain in the wild. 

Risks of Weakening the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

Some opponents of the Act have called for significant changes, including a 

categorical exemption for all captive-bred birds and an elimination of the Act's 

marking provisions. While these changes are generally couched in terms of reducing 

the regulatory burden upon law-abiding aviculturists, we believe that any reduction in 

these essential provisions would be tantamount to a repeal of the Act. A blanket 

exemption for captive-bred birds would essentially render the Act meaningless 

because of the difficulties of distinguishing individual birds taken from the wild or 

bred in captivity. 

Currently, the Act places reasonable limits on captive-bred birds, allowing 

importation for approved cooperative breeding programs in addition to certain 

species (identified on the agency's "clean list" for which international trade has been 

determined to be entirely captive bred). In addition, the Act has no significant 

restrictions on the imports of birds not listed under CITES, whether captive-bred or 

not. 

Similarly, it is essential that the agency administering the Act retain the current. 

very limited authority to require marking of certain types of birds. This authority has 

never been invoked and is not likely to be activated anytime soon (8]. Accordingly, 

the mere possibility of FWS invoking this tool - if needed to address the most 

serious smuggling problems - should not be a serious point of contention during 

4 
150 

this reauthorization process. While no single marking system has yet been perfected, 

elimination of this important enforcement tool sends the wrong message to 

smugglers: that Congress and the Fish and Wildl~e Service are not serious about 

cracking down on the illegal bird trade. 

International trade in captive-bred birds must be regulated to prevent the 

laundering of wild-caught birds. Smugglers have been known to raise chicks from 

eggs taken from the wild, or force closed leg bands over the feet of young wildcaught birds so that they would appear to have been bred in captivity. Further 

exemptions for captive-bred birds would only fuel this sort of illegal activity, to the 

detriment of birds in the wild, as well as to most law-abiding avicu~urists and pet 

dealers in the United States, who would once again be forced to compete w~h a 

flood of inexpensive wild-caught birds. 

Foreign breeding facilrties may also export birds to the unned States once 

these regulations have been finalized by the Fish and Wildloo Service. While some 

cr~ics have accused the Service of delaying these regulations, one must remember 

that the Service has been charged by Congress ~h the difficu~ task of ensuring that 

these facilities will not merely funnel wild-caught birds into the Un~ed States. Until 

effective regulations are in place, the conservation intent of the Act is tar better served 

by a ban on such exports rather than hastily-prepared, incomplete, or unenforceable 

regulations. In the decades prior to passage of the WBCA, aviculturists and bird 

dealers had ample opportunity to develop their own systems to prevent laundering of 

wild-caught birds by foreign facilities. Their failure to do indicates the difficulty of this 

task, and underscores the need for the Act. 

Another reason for maintaining the Act in ~s current form is the importance of 

supporting the many countries that are acting to protect their native wildl~e by 

restricting or banning exports. Nations such as Australia, Guyana, the Philippines, 

and Zimbabwe need the United States to slow demand in order to be able to enforce 

their own bird export bans. Similarly, any significant reopening of trade would 

undermine the enforcement of state laws in New York and New Jersey where pet 

stores and consumers have learned to prom from bird import bans. A national 

approach is needed to this national problem, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

strikes the right balance between conservation and leg~imate business and consumer 

interests [9]. 

Conclusion: Reauthorize the Wild Bird ConservaUon Act 

As the world's largest importer of wild-caught birds, the Unned States was for 

years the driving force behind much of the international trade that was decimating 

populations of wild birds. Belatedly, the Un~ed States has been recognized as a 

world leader in wild bird conservation following the passage of the Wild Bird 

5 
151 

Conservation Act. This law ensures that the importation of exotic birds into the 

Unned States no longer jeopardizes wild populations or causes the needless deaths 

of hundreds of thousands of birds. A strong Wild Bird Conservation Act also helps 

other nations enforce their own bird conservation laws and benef~s American 

aviculturists and pet bird buyers. For these successes to continue, the Act must be 

reauthorized in ns current form. We strongly urge this subcommntee to reauthorize 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act without any weakening amendments. 

6 
152 

Notes 

1. T. P. lnskipp, 1990. Overview of the Number and Value of Birds in Trade. 

Presented at the Symposium on Trade in Wild Birds, Twentieth World 

Conference of the International Council for Bird Preservation, Hamilton, New 

Zealand. 

2. L.A. Alamia and J. P. O'Niell. The Red-Fronted Macaw: A Conservation Priority 

(Part 2). A.F.A. Watchbird, July/August 1995. 

3. S. Lieberman. Landmark U.S. Legislation Will Conserve Exotic Wild Birds. 

Endangered Species Technical Bulletin, December 1992. 

4. E. H. Bucher, 1992. Sustainable Harvesting of Parrots for Conservation. ~ 

World Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology. Smithsonian 

lnstnution Press, Washing1on, D.C. 

5. G. Nilsson, 1985. Importation of Birds into the Unned States, 1980-1984. Animal 

Wenare Institute, Washington, D.C.; G. Nilsson, 1989. Importation of Birds 

into the United States, 1985. Animal Wenare lnstnute, Washing1on, D.C.; G. 

Nilsson, 1990. Importation of Birds into the United States, 1986-1988. Animal 

Wenare Institute, Washington, D.C.; G. Nilsson, 1992. Importation of Birds 

into the United States, 1989. Defenders of Wildlife, Washing1on, D.C. 

6. Supra, note 2. 

7. B. Connor. Testimony on the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 before the 

House Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 

Environment and Trade. 16 June 1992. 

B. J. Doggett, Chief, FWS Law Enforcement, pers. comm., 12 September 1995. 

9. L. Simon. New York's Crusade for Exotic Birds. Defenders, November/ 

December 1990. 

7 
Martin Muschinske 

POB 718 

Jamul, CA 91935 

Honerable Don Young 

Chairman of the House 

subcommittee on Fiseries, 

Wildlife and Oceans 

United States House of 

Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

153 

September 18, 1995 

Attn. Mr Harry Burroughs, Staff Director 

Dear Mr. Young: 

I appreciate the opportunity your committee is giving citizens to be heard on the issues 

involving the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) regulations. My wife and I are 

Environmental Specialists and work for the Department of Fish and Game as well as 

aviculturists. As professionals in the field of Conservation Biology we are concerned with the 

tendency for some, who purport to be, "environmentalists" to embrace old paradigms 

because, like old jeans they are comfortable. 

On September 21, 1994, The National Academy of Sciences launched a three year, 

multimillion-dollar project to explore environmental and development concerns. Among other 

issues the project, called "Global Commons," will investigate the problems of species 

extinction and tropical deforestation, population growth and land use. The project will 

reexamine these problems and may result is a new paradigm. 

We are all aware that the problems addressed by "Global Commons" are exacerbated by 

population growth and wanton exploitation of natural resources. Environmental degradation 

has been the hallmark of economic development and the destruction of natural habitats was 

just assumed to be the by-product of civilization. 

To the pioneers, dwarfed by the expanse of the natural world, and its seemingly endless 

bounty, nature was infinite and inexhaustible. To astronauts peering from spacecraft at the 

"blue marble" earth engulfed by the expanse of the universe, the world seems small and they 

can see that natural resources are finite and exhaustible. 

From each perspective the pioneer and the astronaut have an appropriate understanding of 

the world. It is a contradiction or an enigma, only because each of us sees only a "snapshot 

in time" of the natural wonder called earth. We act based on our perceptions unfortunately 

humans make decisions often based on limited or distorted information, not because we are 

base or evil but because we tend to slip into a comfort zone that makes us feel good. 
154 

The Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), is based on limited and distorted information, as a 

result inaccurate opinions and poorly understood assumptions were used to justify 

outrageous regulations which, in the long run will be contradictory to the aim and goals of wild 

bird conservation. The way in which the regulations are being written and promulgated by 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, we will see the rapid extinction of many Central and South 

American birds because of the onerous provisions of the WBCA and the bureaucratic 

quagmire that they create. 

The WBCA stifles the activities of aviculturists who help protect wild bird populations in two 

ways: 1 . captive breeding of birds for the pet trade takes much of the economic incentive 

out of smuggling birds into the United States and 2. private aviculturists who are active in 

conservation breeding programs, which will provide a valuable resource for future 

reintroduction efforts. 

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) publication, International Wildlife Trade, a CITES Source 

book, recognizes the importance of captive-bred species as • ... they enter trade legally and 

are usually healthier and tamer than their wild caught counterparts." The book goes on to 

detail that presently the only two parrots not regulated by CITES are commonly bred (by 

private aviculturists) and they cite four more species are being bred in significant numbers 

that will deter smuggling ( in my opinion there are dozens of species of birds being 

domestically bred that deter smuggling). 

In his book, Last Animals at the Zoo, that deals with strategies for stopping mass extinction, 

Mr. Colin Tudge, details the importance of the role of private aviculturists in conservation 

breeding programs, in addition he laments the bureaucratic nightmare that sometimes 

accompanies the efforts of conservation breeding programs, even before the present WBCA 

Regulations! The WBCA regulations are unreasonably complex and do not contribute to the 

conservation of wild birds. 

In closing I wish to quote from Mr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of 

Sciences, "Given time, political will and the intelligent use of science, human ingenuity can 

find substitutes for wasteful practices, improve the human condition and the preserve the 

earth's natural resources." The subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans has an 

opportunity to display the political will, recognize the need for intellegent science, and use the 

ingenuity of private aviculturists to help preserve wild bird populations by removing the 

wasteful bureacracy of the WBCA regulations. Recognize the valuable contribution private 

aviculturists have made to the preservation of wild birds and revise the regulations to 

incorporate the recommendations provided by the position of the American Federation of 

Aviculture. 

Sincerely 

Martin Muschinske 
155 

WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARINGS 

September 28, 1995 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Supplemental Testimony of Frank M. Bond, General Counsel 

North American Falconers Association 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciated the opportunity to appear 

before you on September 28, 1995 to present testimony. You told those who testified that the 

record for testimony would be held open for 30 days to receive additional testimony. For that 

purpose, I add this Supplemental Testimony to my testimony and respectfully request that it be 

incorporated by reference for all purposes. 

Amendments 

I. I request that you adopt the following amendment which would substantially 

alleviate some small parts of the problems of those citizens who deal with raptors by exempting 

the family of Falconiformes. 

To Section 104(2)(B)(ii), compiled at 16 USC 4903(2)(B)(ii), amend the WBCA as 

follows: 

(ii) birds in the following families: Falconiformes, Phasianidac, ... 

2. Further, the Committee may wish to consider correcting a bill drafting error it 

made in the original enactment of the WBCA. Section 111 , Prohibited Acts, compiled at 16 

USC 4910, in subsection (a), there appea r two subparagraphs: subparagraph (1), In general; 

and , subparagraph (2), Limitation. There does not appear to be a subparagraph (3). Yet at 
156 

Section ll3(a)(l)(B), compiled at 16 USC 4912 (a)(l)(B), and Section 113(a)(2)(B), compiled 

at 16 USC 4912(a)(2)(B), there appears references to violations of prohibitions of Section 

4910(a)(3). No such prohibition was enacted. 

To correct the drafting error, the Committee should amend the act to strike Sections 

4912(a)(l)(B) and 4912(a)(2)(B). 

WBCA and Raptor Conservation 

I made reference at the public hearing that the WBCA, rather than promote conservation, 

may actually inhibit raptor conservation. I include for your consideration two letters written by 

Dr. William Burnham on April 25, 1995 and May 12, 1994 regarding the raptor conservation 

work undertaken by The Peregrine Fund, which is adversely affected by the WBCA and its 

regulations. The letters were written in response to a call for comments on proposed WBCA 

regulations. I enclose those letters and request that they be made a part of my supplemental 

testimony. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony and to have appear1..d at the hearing. 

Based on the validity of our comments, we sincerely hope that you will agree that it was never 

intended that the WBCA inhibit legitimate uses and conservation of raptors, and therefore, that 

you will exempt the family Falconiformes from the WBCA. 

fmb71!0762 .d 
157 

The Peregrine Fund 

WORLD CENTER FOR BIRDS OF PREY 

Mollie Beattie 

Director 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Room 3256 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Dear Director Beattie: 

April 25, 1995 

FociiSm~ l!n Hrd.s for 

cons<.'n·arwn 1•1 natun: 

With this letter The Peregrine Fund wishes to provide the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service with substantive comment and specific suggestions regarding the Wild Bird Conservation 

Act (WBCA). 

The Peregrine Fund is a non-profit conservation organization working nationally and 

internationally to conserve nature by focusing on birds of prey. We are best known for our 

species restoration projects involving the captive propagation and release of raptors to restore 

extirpated populations and bolster remnant populations. Nationally, we are involved with the 

restoration of the Peregrine Falcon, Aplomado Falcon, California Condor, the 'Alala, and other 

Hawaiian forest birds. Internationally, we are involved in species propagation and restoration 

efforts with the Mauritius Kestrel, Philippine Eagle, Harpy Eagle, and Orange-breasted Falcon. 

Several of these efforts are approaching a successful conclusion while others are just beginning. 

Under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), we continue to 

import and export live raptors for the purposes of restoring and enhancing wild populations. 

Working under the restrictions imposed by these acts and treaties has been problematic at best. 

The average time required to obtain permits is eight months. These delays are apparently 

unavoidable and have contributed to the death of wildlife and the relocation of conservation 

projects outside of the United States. 

5666 West Flymg Ho-.vk Lane Boise. Idaho 83709 United States of Amer1s::: 
!lfollie Beattie 

Page Two 

April 25, 1995 

158 

Since the implementation of the WBCA, The Peregrine Fund has been attempting to 

import a non-releasable Harpy Eagle as part of an on-going species restoration program and has 

found that this new addition to the permit process has made an already unworkably ponderous 

and redundant system even worse. 

I provide our experience with this import request as an example of what this new 

legislation has required of both Service and The Peregrine Fund staff. In January of 1994 we 

encountered a non-releasable captive Harpy Eagle in Venezuela during the course of our ongoing field research on this species in that country. Both the government of Venezuela and The 

Peregrine Fund decided that the best use of this individual would be as part of the captive 

breeding program at our facility in Idaho. The Peregrine Fund submitted an application for a 

CITES import permit to the Office of Management Authority on February 8, 1994. We were 

notified that under the newly adopted WBCA, we would be required to form a "Cooperative 

Breeding Consortium" prior to being able to submit a request for a CITES import permit. 

Following the instructions of the Office of Management Authority, The Peregrine Fund 

submitted applications for a Cooperative Breeding Program under the WBCA. This request was 

approved (PRT-CB003) on September 6, 1994, rwo days short of seven months. At this point 

we were able to re-activate our request for a CITES import permit which was issued (PRT787554) on January 17, 1995, fully eleven months and nine days from the date when application 

was submitted. I would also add that this is the seventh such permit request submitted by the 

same applicant, for the same species, and for the same conservation program. 

Clearly the intent of the WBCA was to control the large scale importation of wild birds 

into the United States, principally psittacines, that were destined for the pet trade. When this 

act was first circulated for public comment we were generally in agreement with its stated intent, 

that being the control of wild birds being imported for the pet trade. However, upon 

implementation the WBCA has gone far beyond its original stated intent of controlling the 

importation of wild birds for the pet trade, but now includes lll.l wild birds imported for ~ 

reason, including legitimate conservation. 

On two different occasions, prior to the implementation of the WBCA, The Peregrine 

Fund has provided written comment (copy enclosed) to the USFWS recommending that ail Falconiformes be excluded form the provisions of the WBCA on the rational that ( 1) raptors 

have never been included in any pet trade, (2) raptors are already subject to the strictest control 

of any bird group in this country and can only be possessed under stringent federal and state 

permit, (3) raptors are already adequately protected under CITES, ESA, and MBTA. (4) the 

WBCA represents an additional permitting hurdle for both applicants and service personnel. 

seriously interfering with our ability as a nation to contribute to raptor conservation on an 

international level. 

Mollie Beattie 
Mollie Beattie 

Page Three 

April 25, 1995 

159 

The additional permitting requirements resulting from the WBCA clearly add another 

level of complication to a system that already does not work well. The cost in time, money, and 

frustration for both the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the applicant are significant and 

without justification. More importantly, the WBCA, as it is currently being implemented, 

represents a negative impact upon the very resource that we are both trying to conserve. 

Once again we requesf that all Falconiformes be excluded from the provisions of the 

WBCA as has already been provided for ten other families. 

Thank you for our consideration. 

WABpwb 

Sincerely yours, 

<?d-N~ William Burnham, Ph.D. 

President 
160 

The Peregrine Fund 

WORLD CENTER FOR BIRDS OF PREY 

Focusing on birds of prry for constrvatl.On of n.aturt 

May 12, 1994 

Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1849 c Street NW 

420 ARLSQ 

Washington, DC 20240 

Re: Comment, Proposed Rule; Importati on of Exoti c 

Wild Birds to the United States; Proposed Rule 

Implementing the WBCA of 1992; Federal Resistor, Vol. 59, 

pp. 12784 et seq., March 17, 1994 

Dear Madam: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above 

referenced proposed regulations. Our recommendation is si~ple - exclude all Falconifonnes from the provisions of the Wild Birc:: 

Protection Act (WBCA) . 

As a:n organization we base the recommendation on alncst 2S 

years of experience nationally and internationally, pri.mar~2.y in 

research and conservation of birds of prey and their habitats. We 

have cooperated on projects in over 40 countries on six continents. 

Personally our combined experience with raptor researc~ and 

conservation internationally exceeds sixty years. 

Import of raptors into the United States does not jeopardize 

any species or population internationally. The WBCA provides no 

benefit to Falconifonnes, in fact it does just the opposi-ce by 

causing those working to conserve rap-cars to waste their time 

dealing with yet another set of regulations and application 

procedures. CITES, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act already provide more than adequate 

protection and regulation for Falco ifo ~e . 

· . ..: :::~e 
Page Two 

May 12, 1994 

161 

Having Falconiformes and other groups of avian species that 

biologically are not threatened by commercial import to the United 

States included in the WBCA discourages research and conservation 

on those species. We are required to expend organizational and 

personal resources (time, money, and personnel) uselessly to comply 

with overly complex regulations when those resources are 

desperately needed to conserve the world's biological diversity. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely yours, 

William Burnham, Ph.D. 

President 
162 

United States Department of the Interior 

DC ESS CNk Y THE DIRECTOR 

H ,I. NQ W•LDLI FE SE RVICE 

In Reply Refer To: 

FWS/OMA 2-06r 

To whom it may concern: 

FISH \~llll li.IJI.IFE SER\"ICE 

11 .- \SI! ~CTO~. D.C. ~0~40 

Enclosed you will find a copy of two recently published Federal Regi ster 

notices that relate to the implementation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA) . The Office of 

Management Authority (OMA) has primary responsibility for implementation of 

the WBCA, in cooperation with the Divi sion of Law Enforcement and the 

Office of Scientific Authority. 

The first notice, published on August 10, 1993, announced species for which 

the importation quota pursuant to the WBCA has been met. The second 

notice, published on August 12 , 1993, is a notice of proposed rulemaking 

that proposes regulations implementing the prohibitions and requirements 

stipulated in the WBCA and provides permit requirements and procedures for some allowed exemptions . Please note that the second notice has a 30-day 

comment period; comments must be received in this office by September 13 , 1993 , in order to be considered in the formulation of a final rule . 

Effective October 22, 1993 , imports of all CITES-listed birds are prohibited, except for species included in an approved list , or for which an import permit has been issued . The Service will publish a proposed 

rulemaking establishing the approved list in a separate notice in the very near future . 

If you have any questions, plea se feel free to contact Dr. Susan Lieberman, 

CITES Policy Specialist in OMA, at (703) 358-2093. 

Sincerely, 

-/"?'Mar

~~ shall Jones, Chief 

Office of Management Authority 

Enc 1 osures 
163 

. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

RP.preeen t a t ivP. J.tm ax t. , Chai r 

Subc ommi t tee on 1<'1eheries, Wi l<il i.fe, and Oceana 

U.S. Ho UF; e o f Kepresentat!vee 

33~ Ctmnon House 01'fice Building 

Washingt.on , D . G. :.!0blb 

Dear Mr . Cht<ir man, 

Th is letter ia to urge you and your f e llow committee membe rs to 

fully s u pport the reauthorization o.t' the U.S . Wild Hird 

Conse rvat ion Ar.t (WllCA) i n its ent i rety . Thie bill hae been 

eucceasf'ul i.n etopping the U.S. from providins incentives that in 

t h e paat l ed t o cruel, lrrationsl, and unsustainable "m.ining " of 

large parr o t s and mttcaws f rom tropical rain foreete and savannahs 

of the glo.be. The bill a l e<J ht1.e provided a tremtmdoue positive 

at.tmulue to r e epaneible b r eeders a nd ranchers of exot i c birds, 

both i n t.hP. Un it.ed St atP.s and abroad . 

Wh en done prope rly, such captive breeding and wild ranching can 

PJ'ovide AUAt!ilnable and hu.mane sources o f exotic birds for pet 

01.,nera and hoLbleet bird breeders. Responsible bird breeding is 

harmleae to wi ld populations of exotic species, while sustai nable 

w:lld ranchi.ng could actually be very bene1'1cial to wild 

popul a tions by providi ng wild bll•de with additional nesting s i tes 

and planted rood. I<'urthermo re, such wild ranching operations 

would h i r e ·foreat guards to protect resident wild birdH (most 

valuable parrots are rP.sident year round) from meat or feather 

hunters and from l"OVing tra.ppers. 

Any weaken.tng of the bill ' s carefully-thought--out provisi ons 

ll.k.ely would open loopholes for iUegaJ importing into the U.S. 

that would produce inc entive to " launder" wild caugllt adult 

bh·de , ptu•eing them off as legitimate captive bred birds. 

Horeover , euch dangerous loopho!eB would a.lao lead to the 

w•sua·tainabl.o detttruction o f wild neat trees for one-time 

h11rve3ts o·f young birde on public lands or on lands owned by 

distant. abaentee investors or COII1paniea. 'l'he W'BCA is the beat 

t .. gislative tool yet for encouraging tropical countries to 

rethink, re"rs•mize, and clean up their means of production and 

e>tport of exotic birds . 

• ,.. ...... :.-t ·•lt.' -·-•.c. ::i··' •••· •·r, ff•.·'-" .1:.- "li:J :.oh (;-. • , , •. ,._ -. , , ,-... t(-.,..,,, , , ..• 

', •.•-., ".<t:: "' • ' : 0,:•'· •· If' ..'• . , 4 :0 "\ft•,•l , ~ · WN .; ... )( ·'• ''- : 1'1" ;.•t.lt-1 •,•,• ';,. > '< •''''' ·N 1-t, • • • ·~ •."•'· ; t1 I •• •::: . 

<_. (,. , ... ' •, ,•t t.,,- "' '' '· '·•' \,t,. l.,.o. ~...: 'i<•llo l ._.., .,,,.~ ~T.,:-\ tfoof ,. ,:, .., ,, ,,, ,. ,_ ., ... ,,,,; 
164 

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

1 have reml carefully and <>pprove entirely of t.he existing 

lunguage in the section of the WBCA (Section 10'/) that deals with 

how a tor-eign captive br-eeding facility can guall.fy t-o export 

CBptive bred birds to the U.S. That section is perfect the way 

it is. It ie not eBpecially lenient OTI foreign facilities, and 

does not give them much benefit of the doubt, but given the 

number of phony cf1ptive breeding f<>cilities in the tropical 

countr-ies (including a number that I personally hav" 

investigated), it is entirely appropriate that this section 

r"main st;rong <Hid set high st;andards. Keeping this section 

e:trong i.e what genei•atea incentive within tropical range 

countries for lucal governments and land owners to experiment 

with sustainable, humane methode of parrot ranching that will 

help rather t.han harm wild populations. In fact, euch 

e•uetalnfible wild !'IIIIOhing would provide incentive for parroic 

rlillchers to protect wild habitat and to bring adult breeding 

popuJ11tions to their maximum wild earrying capacity (,juat aB 

Cflttle ranchers lry to increase their herd of valuable, 

reproducing females). 

Softening Bection 10'1 would only open loopholes for uneuetaim•bly 

caught wJ l d birds to eome into the U.S. under the guise o£ 

'captive bred". Open.lng auch .loopholes would allow th<> 

irresponsible, cruel wholesale parrot exporters from the tropical 

coun cr lAs m1d the ten large import;ers in the U.S. to return to 

the destructl.ve, iiii!Doral ""business as usual"" of trafficking bird•• 

from wherever and whomever ahowa up on the doorstep wi·t,h a cage 

;I runmed with a mixture of stressed, si ek and less siek parrots. 

On anot.he~r spec.it"ic issue, notice that some irresponsible 

people who call themaelveB "avlculturista" are claimin~ 

!Elrroneoua]y that there are identit:ication e:ysteme tn use within 

Lhe community of American bird hobbieats that can readily 

diatingu.l Bh captive--bred and hatched b~rde from birds found in 

iohe wild population. lf they are referring to closed banda pure 

on babieES aoon a:fter hatching or microchipping bHby birds e.oou 

aft8r hatnhing (by injecting a all\fill, electronically-readable 

"i()rochip in the brenat muscle of the bird), t.hen they are 

mialP.adlng you. ln fant, both of these techniques ean be car-ried 

out in the wlld on illegally-caught wild baby birds, which then 

nn.n be pac!Red off as eaptlve-bred birde. If a reliable 

:lndependent authority (eit.her a government or ""non-avicultural'" 

nonservat.lon group) eontrolled thP. production, distribution, and 

overflight of non-count.erfe.i table Dllerochips with unique, non--

enpiil.blf> eo<iee, then it might be possible to design a system that 

could eJiminute cheating. Hut OB uf yet, euch a ays·tem does not. 

exist arHi, to my knowledge, has not. even been propoued. 

ll."l'" 
165 

WIL.DLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

Pr.ior to the 8ct ? there waa no ine entive for a producer country 

J.n the tr-opics to en.,our-age car-eful, Lhoughtful pr-oduction of 

r-anched wild bir-de. '!'hue, Pl'ior to the act , no tropical land owner had any reason fol' developing responsible parrot ranching, 

which might include hanging ext.ra nest boxes and taking, raieins, 

and eelling only the last hatched or runt chicks from these 

boxetl. Rather, px·ior to the~. all parrots exported froDl 

tropical countr-ies were mined in a cruel, noneustainable manner 

tbat led to heavy poet-trapping 100rtality and the inevitable 

" tragedy-of-the- coanona" style destruction of wild par-rot 

popu1at1.ona by irresponsible, roving trappers. 

Now , for the first time, tropical peoples who own and man~e 

their rtlln forests (auch ae the 11,000 Indiana and rain forest 

colonists that I have helped land title in an area the ai~e of 

Coru1ecticut in Peru over the past ten years- -see 5 Dec 1894 issue 

of 'riME magazine) have a reason and incentive to consider 

sustainable, humane pal"l'Ot ranching in wild rainforest habitat ae 

a way to add value to their standing forest . In this way, they 

may find that parrot ranchina t,hat followe the rules of the WHCA 

tr1ay provide them with ll fun and susta.inable income source from 

intact rain forest (a habitat type that may be exhuberant llnd 

biologically diveree , but unfortunately is generally quite 

inedl.ble and unmarketable Wlleas cleared and replaced by coffee ~ 

and chocolate plantations, which are only pa!'tially sustainable 

in poor AlnazorJiarl aoile). 

As far aa t.he complaints lodJied about the WBCA by people who call 

themeelves "aviculturiete", these people traditionally always 

have ehown the greatest concer-n about maintaining unlimited 

access to low-· priced bird .. , from whatever sour-ce. For them, 

colltwtlng and breeding birds Ia an obsession that Jwowl'l few 

l imite. They claim to be concerned about the conservation of 

these species in the wild, but in fact they normally donate 

little time or cash to field conservation efforts (which for 99% 

of endangP-red bird speeies are much mor.•e coat effective dollar 

for dollar than are captive breeding conservation efforts). 

Howadaya, many of the moat agre flei.ve ''ttv1cult.urieta·· devote 

considerable resources and time to lobbying for changes to the 

WBCA that would allow easy import of eo-called " c aptive bred" 

blrdA produced at foreign facilities. I know from my peraonal 

experience of 20 years ae a research scientist in Peru, Bolivia, 

Brazi.l, and Paraguay, that many, if not moat or all, facilities 

in tropical countries that claim to be producina and selling only 

captive bred birds are actually just laundering illegally cauaht 

wild birds. Thus, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ia quite correct to be very suspicious of any foreign facilities that 

claim to be 8<}Ueliky clean . 
166 

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 

The o nly way t o get the incentive eyetem rillht and thereby 

encourage the development of auetainable and humane methode of c aptive br-eed i ng and wild ranching of parrots is to keep t he WBCA 

Btronu and intact . Anything else will simply play into the hands 

o f those who se principal (though often hidden) agendB. is to 

a~intain B.n unlimited flow of inexpensive p arrots to satisfy 

t'heir mania for parro t collecting and trading . It ie important 

!'or you a nd your colleagues to eee through the emokesc reen of c:onaerva.tion rhetoric emanating from s ome " a vicultura l" 

organizations, for study B.fter etudy hae demonstrated that t he 

DlOst coat effective way to conserve wild species of parrots or 

mo at other large vertebrates ie not through captive breeding in 

:r.ooe and l.n private collections, but rather through measures to 

J>rotect wild populations together with the habi tat on which they 

depend. 

Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to answer any 

1uestions you may have about the excellent features of the Wi l d 

Rird Conservation Act . 

ncer-ely, 

Charles A. Hunn. Ph.D . 

Senior Conservation Zoologist 

fax in the U.S. 215 923 5535, tel 3641 

tel/fax in Peru (where I am until I return to U.S. on 5 Nov 

1995): 011 51 14 498569 or 011 51 14 307170. 

l;F <.• ~ •. ," Io< ··, ... :. .. l:o•~l ~ A, :~ :O ... 0,..~ .l.loo.J ..... :. l >\..1 1 < ,,,,o, .,l ._\,.,. ,·.)H ....... ... . L..., ;, ~ ... ,)., , ' "" W•o t l • •u ... :-. J~ ~1 1 

CI::N • ,. ·\ 1.. ' '"":I', ·• t.~ f• • A N t ... ...... .. l'I. C T f-A."'"'~ 1.. 1 • ~l N• IO F.I" ">~ , TI-- l:.>< .; l;. ~ "'" t11 I' • ~: 
167 

Benny J. Gallaway, Ph.D. 

26 October 1995 

The Honorable Jim Saxton 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries 

Wildlife & Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

H1-805 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Saxton: 

Dir~ctor o[ Conurvation 

1410 Cavitt Street 

Bryan, Texas 77801 

(409) 775·2000 

I wish to provide comment on the written testimony of Dr. S.R. 

Beissinger presented to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

on 28 September 1995 concerning the reauthorization of the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act of 1992. The part I wish to address is found on pages 5 and 6 

of his testimony under the heading "Captive Breeders Do Not Need 

Continued Access to Wild Stocks". In that section, he asserts that, with 

cooperative management, only 50 to 75 birds per species are needed to 

constitute a viable gene pool for a captive population. This statement is 

predicated on the stated premise that limited genetic diversity is required for 

maintaining permanent captive populations not used for reintroduction to 

the wild. This premise acknowledges that an unstated amount of genetic 

diversity will be lost, but in his view this will not affect the ability of 

aviculturists to continue to produce birds, albeit with ever-decreasing genetic 

diversity and resemblance to the wild stock. We disagree. Within a very 

short time, the captive populations will not be valuable as a conservation 

hedge to extinction, even as a last resort. Under Dr. Beissinger's scenario, the 

genetic fitness of the captive population would decline to a status where the 

only value of the birds produced would be to supply the domestic pet trade. 

Further, the captive population would be doomed to ultimate extinction 

without extraordinary genetic management at a level which has heretofore 

not been achieved (due to rapid acceleration of inbreeding coefficients) by any 

sector, public or private. The genetic tools and technology required to achieve 

the level of management that is suggested are only recently emerging. 

RM4ERICRN f4ED4ERRTION Of RVICUL TUR41. INC. 

P.O. BOX 56218 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85079-6218 (602) 484·0931 
168 

The mission statement of the American Federation of Aviculture 

(AFA) is "To preserve avian species on a worldwide basis". To achieve this 

mission requires that we have to maintain genetic diversity in our captive 

populations in order to preserve the fitness of species in captivity as close as 

possible to their wild counterparts. To do otherwise would foreclose future 

conservation options. Zoological Parks have the same mission regarding 

captive populations, but have limited space and funding to accommodate all 

the species needing a captive-population hedge against extinction. Zoological 

institutions are often referred to as being analogous to "Noah's Ark". 

However, there is concern about how many and which species can be 

accommodated in the Ark, and how many individuals of each species will be 

necessary to survive a trip of unknown-but likely very long-duration. The 

private sector can expand the Ark to a "fleet" allowing for more species and 

greater survival rates. 

Given the fact that preservation of genetic diversity of birds in privatesector collections is important, still leaves the unanswered question of how 

many birds of each species are needed? As must be well-known to Dr. 

Beissinger, the concept that a nucleus population of 50 to 75 birds can be 

managed to maintain the genetic diversity of a captive population over the 

long-term has been discredited. In a 1993 paper in Zoo Biology (12), pages 535 

to 548, Kevin Willis and Robert J. Wiese evaluated the premise that a small 

nucleus population (50 to 75 individuals) supplemented by periodic 

importation of wild-caught animals could be used to maintain the same 

amount of gene diversity as larger populations that do not import wildcaught animals. Assuming a "perfect population" regarding breeding 

population size, sex ratios, productivity etc. (all of which would maximize 

retention of gene diversity) mathematical models were used to conduct a 

comparative analysis. Even for this unrealistic "perfect population" the 

results were staggering. For populations of 50 to 100, 10 to 20 times more 

wild-caught animals were required for each generation than had been 

suggested based upon untested theory. The results showed that if the 210 

species recommended to be managed in this fashion were established with 

total captive population sizes of 100 each, then 5,040 new wild-caught animals 

would have to be imported each generation to maintain 98"/,, of the original 

gene diversity. The authors concluded that, "clearly, this approach is not 

practical for application on a large scale". AFA concurs with this and with the 

four conclusions of the paper: 

" 1. Regular importation of wild-caught animals will allow 

continued maintenance of gene diversity in captive 

populations. 

2. The Nucleus I population concept, as defined and promoted 

by the CBSG, would require 10-20 times greater importation 

rates than indicated by the CBSG. This factor makes wide 

2 
169 

use of the Nucleus I concept an inefficient strategy for 

conservation of gene diversity. 

3. Small captive populations can be effective for some 

conservation goals but are not appropriate for long-term 

retention of gene diversity. 

4. Regional taxon advisory groups developing regional 

collection plans should not rely on a single "blanket" 

strategy (e.g., 90% gene diversity/100 years) for all captive 

breeding programs, but rather, use a number of different 

strategies based on the most effective use of captive space 

for species conservation." 

In our verbal testimony before the Committee, AFA suggested that 

1,000 individuals was more realistic than 50 to 75 as the minimum captive 

population size necessary to maintain genetic diversity. The basis for this 

number comes from the 1995 National Research Council (NRC) report on 

Science and the Endangered Species Act, pages 8 and 9: 

"If the members of the population do not mate with each other 

at random (the case for most natural populations), then the 

effect of small size on loss of genetic variation is made more 

severe; the population is said to have a smaller effective size 

than its true size. Populations with long-term mean sizes 

greater than approximately 1,000 breeding adults can be viewed 

as genetically secure; any further increase in size would be 

unlikely to increase the amount of adaptive variation in a 

population. If the effective population size is substantially 

smaller than actual population size, this conclusion can translate 

into a goal for survival for many species of maintaining 

populations with more than a thousand mature individuals per 

generation, perhaps several thousand in some cases. An 

appropriate, specific estimate of the number of individuals 

needed for long--term survival of any particular population 

must be based on knowledge of the population's breeding 

structure and ecology. If information on that species is lacking, 

information about a related species might be useful." 

The key point we wish to make is not that the minimum population 

size should be 1,000 instead of 50, but rather that the use of blanket numbers 

like these should be avoided in the regulations. Such requirements can lead 

to unexpected foreclosures of future conservation options. However, AFA 

recognizes that a much better job of genetic management can be accomplished 

than is presently the case, and that much can be done with less than optimum 

population sizes, or less than desired numbers of new founders in the form of 

wild-caught exotic birds. One key to reducing the need for new wild-caught 

3 
170 

founders is that American aviculturists have access to captive-bred stock in 

other countries. This is one basis for our insistence that incentives be 

provided for international trade in captive-bred species. The emerging DNA 

technology is already able to provide insurance against laundering, which is 

only a concern for a relatively small number of high-profile, problematic 

species. The need for such insurance would better be addressed on a permitby-permit basis rather than being incorporated as a part of the general 

regulations. 

Dr. Beissinger has long advocated that "when implemented properly 

and conservatively, sustainable harvesting of exotic birds could provide 

advantages for conservationists, aviculturists, the pet industry and local 

peoples" (see page 6 of his written testimony). To accomplish such a 

sustainable harvesting goal, however, requires that a market exists for the 

target species. Maintaining the genetic diversity of captive populations is one 

of the few justifications that can be offered regarding harvest of wild exotic 

birds for international trade. We hope that Congress, in its review of the 

present WBCA, will make the changes necessary to assure the continued and 

healthy existence of America's aviculture. 

Thank you for your consideration of my comments. 

Sincerely 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF AVICULTURE 

/I/) 

liL~~a~~? 

Benny f. Gallaway, Ph.D. 

Director of Conservation 

BJG/je 

cc: Dr. S. R. Beissinger 

Ms. Laurella Desborough 

Mr. Bob Berry 

4 
171 

~11811 

October 27, 1995 

Congressman Jim Saxton, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U. S. House of Representatives 

H1-805 O'Neill House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Congressman Saxton: 

On 28 September 1995 The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 

presented testimony on behalf of our 2.3 million members, Defenders of 

Wildlife, Environmental Investigation Agency, Society for Animal 

Protective Legislation and other conservation and animal protection 

organizations before the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, 

Wildlife and Oceans (Subcommittee) on the U.S. Wild Bird Conservation 

Act (Act). We strongly support this law, which has made the United 

States a leader in efforts to protect exotic wild birds, and urge the 

Subcommittee to reauthorize the Act without any language changes. 

It was evident during the hearing that almost all of the concerns relating to 

the Act could be addressed through increased funding. An increase in 

funding would enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to issue 

permits, implement regulations and address constituent concerns in a more 

expeditious and responsive manner. Simplification of the permitting 

process through changes in the language of the Act is not necessary. 

When deliberating on the most appropriate course of action in terms of 

the reauthorization, we urge the Subcommittee to pursue this route, which 

is the only option that received the support of all groups testifying at the 

hearing. 

Our written testimony has addressed already most of the proposed changes 

to the Wild Bird Conservation Act which were presented at the 28 

September hearing. Specifically, any weakening of the requirements for 

importing captive-bred birds from overseas breeding facilities or the 

removal of language granting the Secretary of the Interior the authority to 

impose limited marking programs would compromise the intent of the Act 

and severely limit the Services' ability to curtail smuggling. The request 

that captive-bred birds be exempted entirely from the provisions of the Act 

The Humane Society ol the l'nitcd States 

2100 L Street. XW. \\'ashinJ,ttnn. DC 200.17 

(202) 452-1100 FAX {202) 77S-61.12 
172 

is wholly unreasonable. Aviculturists and conservationists agree that there is no practical 

method for distinguishing a captive-bred bird from a wild-caught bird. Therefore, should 

such provisions be implemented, birds that were removed from the wild could easily be 

smuggled into the U.S. under the false claim that they were bred in captivity. Operation 

Renegade--an ongoing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service investigation into the trade in exotic 

birds--reveals that smugglers commonly disguise illegal, wild birds as captive bred in order 

to access the United States pet market. 

Contrary to statements made during the oversight hearing, captive-bred birds are now 

entering the United States. The Act contains several mechanisms to ensure the 

continuation of such imports, such as the "clean list" in Section 106 and the exemptions 

outlined in Section 112. In addition, the Act has no effect upon the importation of 

captive-bred birds of species that are not listed under the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Aora (CITES). Admittedly, the Service 

does need to finalize the regulations for the approval of foreign captive breeding facilities, 

but until these regulations are complete, aviculturists can import captive-bred birds 

through the above mechanisms. 

Listed below arc additional proposed changes to the Act that surfaced during the 

oversight hearing, followed by our rebuttals. Those within the animal protection and 

conservation community that are truly interested in the conservation of exotic wild birds 

oppose these changes to the Act. We compromised a great deal during the negotiation 

process leading up to the implementation of the Act and we would find any further 

weakening of its provisions completely unacceptable. 

Prooosed Change: Amend tbe Wild Bird Conservation Act so that species listed on 

Appendix Ill of CITES are only included within tbe scope of the Act for those countries 

unilaterally listing the species. 

umiting the current scope of the moratorium upon importation of Appendix lll bird 

species would violate the intent of the Act by significantly reducing protections for 

hundreds of thousands of wild birds and by promoting smuggling. Section 105(c) of the 

Act states that "the importation of any exotic bird of a species that is listed in any 

Appendix to the Convention is prohibited." The American Federation of Aviculture 

(AFA), Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAq and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 

have requested that this language be 11 clarified", suggesting that the import moratorium for 

Appendix III birds should be limited to those birds originating from countries which have 

unilaterally listed the species on Appendix Ill. Yet the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia already "clarified" this issue in 1994 with its ruling in The Humane Society of 

the United States, ~ !!!. v. Bruce H. Babbitt ~ !!!. The Court found that the import 

prohibitions in the Act are stated in a clear and unambiguous manner, and that the Act 

restricts the importation of any species listed on any Appendix to CITES, regardless of the 

country of origin. 

2 
173 

The AFA, WWF and PIJAC argue that not all individuals of species listed on Appendix 

III are regulated by CITES, and contend that the scope of the Act's import prohibitions 

for Appendix III species should be limited accordingly. However, all individuals of species 

listed on Appendix III are subject to CITES controls, regardless of the country of origin. 

All individuals of species included on Appendix III must be accompanied by a certificate 

of origin at the time of import. 

Easing the current import prohibitions on Appendix III birds in the manner that the AFA, 

PIJAC and WWF request would strip protections from hundreds of thousands of birds. 

Species that are subject to high levels of trade would be excluded from the scope of the 

Wild Bird Conservation Act. Between 1986 and 1989 more than 150,000 birds of species 

listed on Appendix III were imponed into the United States. The vast majority of these 

birds were finches, which frequently suffer exceptionally high mortality during transpon. 

In 1989, more than 43,000 finches died' during transpon to the United States and 

quarantine, and in March 1991 , more than 10,000 finches died during a single shipment to 

the United States. Limiting the pro hibition on importation of Appendix Ill birds would 

also undermine the efforts of listing countries such as Ghana to protect their indigenous 

birds. Wild birds would be illegally caught in countries prohibiting export, smuggled into 

neighboring countries which allow exportation, and then "laundered" into the legal trade. 

The Act's existing prohibition on the importation of all birds listed Appendix III must be 

maintained. 

Proposed Change: Amend Section 106 to allow tbe "List or Approved Species" to include 

all species which are regularly bred in captivity, regardless. or whether there is illegal 

trade in wild-caught individuals or the species. 

Expanding the Section 106 exemption to cover all captive-bred birds regardless of whether 

any wild-caught birds of the same species are being traded illegally would undermine the 

Act and serve to promote the smuggling of exempted species. Currently, species that are 

regularly bred in captivity and for which no wild-caught individuals of the species are in 

trade, may be included on the Act's approved list. Trade in these species is therefore not 

subject to regulation under the Act. The AFA is requesting that requirements for 

inclusion on the approved list be modified so that any species which is commonly bred in 

captivity may be placed on the approved list, even if wild-caught individuals of the species 

continue to be illegally traded. The Service specifically rejected this proposal when 

formulating their final regulations in 1992, citing existing problems in adequate regulatory 

and enforcement mechanisms in many countries of origin for species which are subject to 

illegal trade. According to the Service, this change to the approval criteria would 

undermine the conservation efforts of range countries, and therefore violates the intent of 

Congress and the purpose of the Act (59 FR 62257). Exempting species for which illegal 

trade continues would remove any legal means of ensuring that imported birds are not 

smuggled, wild-caught individuals. Amending the Act in this manner would therefore 

legalize the importation of smuggled wild-caught birds. If this proposed change were 

accepted, the importation of smuggled birds would essentially be legalized. 

3 
174 

Suggestion: Amend regulations implementing Sedion 112(4) to eliminate requirements 

that participants in a cooperative breeding program be required to track progeny. 

Exempting cooperative breeding programs from tracking and recordkeeping requirements, 

as suggested by the AFA and PIJAC, would significantly undermine the purpose of 

Section 112 and the Act as a whole. Pursuant to this section, the Service must ensure that 

birds imported for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, cooperative breeding 

programs or as personal pets are used exclusively for the purpose for which the permit was 

issued. In the House Committee Report on the Wild Bird ConseiVation Act, Congress 

indicated that applicants for permits for cooperative breeding programs must be able to 

"demonstrate that he or she is capable and fully intends to keep track of the whereabouts 

of the offspring of birds that are imported under this exemption." Therefore, the 

regulations adopted under Section 11 2 require those applying for the approval of a 

cooperative breeding program to have in place a system of recordkeeping and tracking of 

imported birds and their progeny. These regulations neither dictate a specific tracking 

system or technology, nor do they· require that the tracking data be forwarded to the 

SeiVice at any time. These regulations are essential to prevent the utilization of imported 

birds for purposes other than those authorized by the permit, and should not be eliminated. 

Suggestion: Remove Section 107 of the Act, which requires that all birds exported from 

an approved foreign breeding facility &dually be bred at that facility. 

Eliminating or weakening Section 107 as recommended by the Association of Avian 

Veterinarians (AA V) would increase significantly the threat of illegal wild-caught birds 

entering the United States under the false claim that they are captive-bred. The Act 

allows the importation of otherwise prohibited bird species from qualified foreign captive 

breeding facilities. To ensure that these birds are indeed captive bred and not wild 

caught, Section 107(b) specifies six criteria for the determination of "qualified" foreign 

breeding facilities, one of which requires that all birds exported from the facility be bred 

at that facility. These requirements prevent birds of unknown origin, especially illegal, 

wild-caught birds, from entering the legal trade. Without these requirements, wild-caught 

birds could easily be laundered as captive bred. Section 107 is vital to ensuring that the 

trade in captive-bred exotic birds does not become a drain on wild populations, and 

should not be weakened or eliminated. 

Proposed Change: Amend Section 104 to exempt all Falconiformes from the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act. 

The North American Falconers Association proposes that all raptors be exempted from 

the Act because raptor imports are already subject to regulation under the Endangered 

Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CITES. In addition, they claim that wild 

populations arc already sufficiently protected under these Jaws. 

4 
175 

Falconiformes must continue to receive protection under the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

because wild individuals remain in trade. Consumer demand for these species has proven 

to result in illegal trade. Also, wild individuals have been laundered as having been bred 

in captivity. Other avian species subject to regulation under the Act are also regulated by 

several federal laws. Falconiformes must remain regulated by the Act because other 

federal laws do not adequately protect wild populations from unsustainable trade. 

Prooosed Change: Add a section to the Act stipulating that any olfspring born io tbe 

United States or illegally acquired exotic birds be deemed legal. 

This proposal, put forth by the AFA, would promote smuggling of wild exotic birds for 

private collections. Some of the most endangered exotic bird species were never legally 

exported from their countries of origin, so the owners of these birds are known to have 

participated i:. or supported illegal activities. Legalizing the offspring of these birds would 

allow these individuals to openly obtain notoriety for illegally possessing rare and 

endangered species. It would also allow them to profit significantly from selling these 

illegal birds or their offspring. The legalization of offspring of illegally acquired birds 

would increase the smuggling of wild individuals of these species in order to augment 

parental stock for so-called "legal" production. For many rare and endangered species, 

such an increase in illegal trade could result in extinction. 

We are confident that the Subcommittee will recognize that these amendments, if accepted, 

would severely undermine the ability of the Act to achieve its intended purpose of promoting 

the conservation of exotic birds in the wild. The requirements which the AFA, PIJAC, WWF 

and AA V are suggesting be weakened or eliminated were included specifically to curtail the 

likelihood of wild exotic birds being laundered into the United States under the claim that 

they are captive bred. To ensure the continued success of the Act, it must be reauthorized 

without any weakening amendments. 

Sincerely, 

John W. Grandy 

Vice-President 

Wildlife and Habitat Protectio 

The Humane Society of the U ited States 

~1~ 

Allan Thornton, President 

Environmental Investigation Agency 

5 

9~t. u:,.......__ James K. Wyerman 

Vice-President for Program 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Christine Stevens, Secretary 

Society for Animal Protective Legislation 
The Honorable James Saxton 

Chainnan 

176 

~Ia environmental inwstigation agency 

House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Hl-805 O'Neill Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

October 27 , 1995 

Dear Mr. Saxton: 

I am writing in response to a September 27, 1995, letter from Mr. Frank Curie, President of 

Zoological Birds Import of Franklin Park, Illinois. Representative Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill, 6th) 

submitted this letter into the record of the oversight bearing on the U.S. Wild Bird 

Conservation Act (WBCA). In his accompanying letter Mr. Hyde stated that the WBCA has 

"punished" Mr. Curie and that the Act needs to be "fixed". However, Mr. Curie's list of 

"complaints" involve violations of federaJ laws and regulations totally unrelated to the 

WBCA. In fact, the majority of his referenced "problems" acrually occurred before the Act's 

passage in October 1992. 

Mr. Curie can hardly be described as a "law abiding citizen". The majority of his claims of 

abuse and harassment involve monetary fines Mr. Curie was ordered to pay in compensation 

for blatant and continuing violations of the federaJ laws and regulations which govern the 

wildlife import industry. As he describes in his own letter, Mr. Curie has a consistent 

history of violating the federaJ regulations governing the humane transport of wildlife. 

Because of the low prices paid for most bird species in developing countries, insuring 

humane care for these animals becomes an unnecessary ioconvenience for many importers. 

Mr. Curie's cruel treatment of these birds begins with his numerous violations of transport 

standards and ends after the 30-day required quarantine with death for large numbers of birds 

at his facilities. In 1994. the most recent year for which data is available. over 4,000 exotic 

birds died in Mr. Curie's possession. His company holds one of the highest rates of 

mortality for exotic birds imported into the United States- 18% of his birds imported were 

either dead on arrival or died during quarantine. 

Mr. Curie mentions the Environmental Investigation Agency in his letter to Mr. Hyde. In 

1994, I witnessed the arrival of a large shipment of wild birds in New York and the 

unpacking of these birds in a commercial quarantine station. The shipment violated 

numerous federal regulations governing the humane transport of these birds. As a result, 

dozens of dead birds were removed from the crates during unpacking. In addition, the 

required procedures for insuring secure quarantine of the birds (in order to prevent the spread 

of harmful disease) were violated repeatedly. Such infractions are a severe threat to the 

multimillion dollar poultry industry here in the United States. 

1611 Connecticut A venue, N.W., Suite 38 • Washington, D.C 20009 Tel' (202) 483~21 • Fa" (202) 483--6625 

Directors: Susan Fountain. jennifer lonsdale, Allan Thornton 
177 

Mr. Curie falsely claims that the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service successfully stopped 

American Airlines from canying ... (his) bird shipments to the United States. " Presently over 

one hundred international airlines, understanding that tens of thousands of live wild birds die 

in uanspon every year, have adopted policies not to transpon live wild birds for the 

commercial pet trade. These airlines do not wish to panicipate in a cruel trade that has had 

significant adverse effects on the conservation of many wild avian populations. The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service was never involved in any effons to influence the transpon polici~s 

of these airlines. Information on the trade was provided by a large number of non-profit 

conservation, environmental and animal welfare organizations. These carrier restrictions 

continue to receive wide suppon from the American public. 

In his letter, Mr. Curie claims that the FWS has eliminated twenty-three other bird 

imponation businesses. Mr. Saxton, many of the largest commercial imponers have put 

themselves out of business- they have been indicted, convicted or sentenced for laundering 

protected bird species into the "legal" trade. Their profits were in the millions of dollars. 

The trade in wild birds for pets has proven to be rife with corruption. 

Mr. Curie's letter has no relation to the U.S. Wild Bird Conservation Act and should not 

have been submitted into the hearing record. The Act, adopted by unanimously by Congress 

and signed into law in 1992, simply insures that U.S. impons of wild birds are both humane 

and sustainable. We hope you will lend your suppon to reauthorization of this imponant 

federal law without changes. 

Thank you for your attention. 

~ Ann Michels 

Wildlife Trade Specialist 

cc: The Honorable Henry J. Hyde 
178 

Conservation, Scientific, Environmental 

and Animal Welfare Organizations Support 

Reauthorization of the U.S. Wild Bird Conservation Act 

The Honorable James Saxton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

October 25, 1995 

Dear Mr. Saxton: 

The undersigned organizations support reauthorization of the U.S. Wild Bird 

Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA) without changes. In particular, we oppose 

any weakening of WBCA requirements for the importation of foreign, captive-bred 

birds . Strict federal regulations are necessary in order to insure that imported 

exotic birds, claimed to be captive-bred have been genuinely bred-in-captivity. 

Otherwise wild birds, even threatened and protected species, could easily enter 

the United States in violation of federal law. 

The U.S. Wild Bird Conservation Act is a critical tool to promote the conservation 

of exotic birds in the wild. Prior to its implementation, the United States was the 

world's leading importer of wild birds for pets--more than 7.4 million birds were 

imported between 1980 and 1991 . High mortalities of birds in trade necessitated 

that many times the number sold be captured in the wild. Since implementation 

of the WBCA, U.S. imports of wild exotic birds have declined drastically. This 

Act is giving wild populations a chance to recover from decades of destructive, 

unsustainable trade for the U.S. pet market. 

Thank you for your support on this important issue. 

Sincerely, 

Alaska Wildlife Alliance 

American Humane Association 

American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

Animal Protection Institute of America 

lpage 11 
Association of Field Ornithologists 

Audubon Council of Pennsylvania 

Audubon Naturalist Society 

Audubon Society of New York State 

Audubon Society of Missouri 

Audubon Society of New Hampshire 

Audubon Society of Portland, Oregon 

Birds of Prey Rehabilitation Foundation 

Border Ecology Project 

Connecticut Audubon Society 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Delmarva Ornithological Council 

Earth Island Institute 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Environmental Investigation Agency 

Florida Audubon Society 

Friends of Animals 

Friends of the Earth 

Fund for Animals 

179 

Greater Akron Audubon Society (Akron, Ohio) 

Greenwich (Connecticut) Audubon Society 

Hawaii Audubon Society 

Humane Society of the United States 

Illinois Audubon Society 

Indiana Audubon Society 

International Primate Protection League 

International Wildlife Coalition 

Maryland Ornithological Society 

Massachusetts Audubon Society 

Michigan Audubon Society 

National Audubon Society 

Nebraska Audubon Council 

New Jersey Audubon Society 

New Jersey Chapter of the Wildlife Society 

New York City Audubon Society 

Rainforest Action Network 

Ranier Audubon Society (Auburn, Washington) 

Society for Animal Protection Legislation 

Tennessee Ornithological Society 

Texas Committee on Natural Resources 

{page 21 
180 

The Ornithological Council 

representing the American Ornithologists' Union, The Cooper 

Ornithological Society, the Wilson Ornithological Society, the Colonial 

Waterbird Society, the Association of Field Ornithologists, the Raptor 

Research Foundation, and the Pacific Seabird Group 

Vermont Audubon Council 

Virginia Ornithological Society 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

World Society for the Protection of Animals 

(page 3) 
181 

26 October 1995 

Cong ressman H. James Saxton 

House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

United States House of Representatives 

Hl-805 O'Neil House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: 

I am writing to you regarding the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

(WBCA; Public Law 102-440) and the Public Hearings held on 28 September 1995. 

I request that the enclosed letter and materials be included in the 

Congressional Hearing as a written testimony. The enclosed materials are: 

1. American Federation of Aviculture journal containing the article by 

Mr. Rick Jordan entitled "Conservat ion and Aviculture" found on pages 

45-47 . I have not made copies for each Subcommittee member due to 

copyright laws. I respectfully request that each Subcommittee member 

refer to this journal as part of my testimony. 

2. My letter to the Editor-in- Chief of the American Federation of 

Aviculture regarding my opinion of this above mentioned article. 

3. An article from the Abaconian newspaper regarding the Nat iona l Park 

that was developed for the protection of the Bahama parrot. It was 

published in May, 1994 on Great Abaca Island, Bahamas. Research 

conducted by a well known field biologist was instrumental in the 

implementation of this park. This research appeared to be criticized by 

Mr. Jordan in the above mentioned article. 

4. Advertisement from Ameri can Federation of Aviculture referring to the 

WBCA. 

5. Article from the Breeders' Bulletin (October 1995) referring to the 

WBCA. 

I submit my curriculum vitae to the Subcommittee to substantiate my 

position as a research scientist. However, I request that it is not included 

in the testimony package and remains confidential. Thank you . 

I, personally, take full responsibility for this testimony . It does not 

necessarily represent the views of any organizations or institutions with 

which I am affiliated. 

2J?::~ Patricia Wainright, Ph.D. 
182 

26 October 1995 

Congressman H. James Saxton 

House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans 

United States House of Representatives 

H1-805 O'Neil House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: 

I am writing to you regarding the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 

(WBCA; Public Law 102-440) and the Public Hearings held on 28 September 1995. 

I request that this letter be included in the Congressional Hearing as a 

written testimony. 

strongly urge you and your committee members to support the continued 

implementation of the WBCA in its entirety. The WBCA was designed to protect 

exotic birds from inhumane treatment and over exploitation from their native 

habitats. The WBCA has had a monumentally positive impact on the conservation 

of exotic birds in foreign countries. Prior to its enactment, the U.S. 

appeared analogous to a large vacuum cleaner removing natural treasures such 

as exotic birds from their countries of origin. We cannot return to that 

irresponsible international distinction. 

Prior to the WBCA foreign countries were faced with overwhelming 

pressure from the U.S. to export their native birds. Authorities in these 

countries are now more effective in restricting or banning the exportation of 

their birds. I am a research scientist and I have worked on parrot 

conservation with Government and National Trust biologists in the West Indies. 

They are working hard to preserve their birds. They do not have the manpow~:r 

or resources to monitor the poaching of birds for export to the U.S. Poachers 

destroy nests by cutting-down trees, killing many young birds and destroyin(:;~ 

nesting sites for subsequent years. These countries need our support by 

maintaining strict regulations at U.S. borders. 

The Act has provided incentives for captive breeding within the U.S. 

Aviculturists in New Jersey are thriving. In my home town, an aviculturist is 

doing so well that he doubled his facilities this year. 

I listened to and have closely studied the testimonies given during the 

WBCA Hearings from those individuals and groups supporting the Act and those 

opposing it. I was impressed with those statements presented by the WBCA 

supporters; their main interest was clearly the continued protection of exotic 

birds. 

was dismayed with what I heard from those who testified for the birdbreeding industry. Their testimonies appeared self serving, and in many cases 

put their interests ahead of the birds that they profess to be protecting. 

Conservation is not taking birds from the wild, it is not weakening 

regulations for captive breeding facilities in foreign countries, and it is 

not making it economically convenient to import birds for a few. They claimed 

that "the regulations are burdensome and restrictive". Regulations are 

restrictive because we, as a species, are greedy. Weakening the provisions of 

the Act will open loopholes for the illegal importation of wild-caught birds. 

The representative for the Association of Avian Veterinarians (AAV) 

stated that she "opposes the current language in the WBCA that requires that 

all birds exported from an approved captive breeding facility be bred at that 
183 

facility•. However, weak ening Section 107, as was suggested, will open venues 

for illegal ' laundering ' of wild-caught birds through loose l y defined captive 

breeding facilities in for eign countri es. Further, the Act will be 

ineffective in protecting birds from inhumane treatment if strict regulations 

are not placed on husbandry practices. The U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS} is in the process of establishing c r.iteria for approving fo reign 

breeding facilities. This secti o n should n o t be weakened b efore it is even 

promulgated. 

The testimony submitted by the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA) 

expressed their impatience with the WBCA in pro viding immediate results from 

sustainable-use populatio n studies. Their view appears to be that if such 

studies are not completed in a timely manner, then importation should resume 

in an 'ignorance is bliss' manner. 

At the same t ime that AFA representatives testified at the Congressional 

Hearings that the U.S. government should be funding bio l ogical studies in the 

field, Mr . Rick Jordan (First Vice-Presid e nt , AFA) outrageously criti c ized 

studies o f parrot species in the field . Mr . Jordan referred to the WBCA as 

"stupid" in an article published in the AFA magazine (AFA Watchbird. 12( 5),45-

47. 1995; enc losed) . In my opinion this article galvanizes readers against 

the WBCA in its current form. How can he c laim he supports the WBCA and 

con servation when he appears so cynical abo ut scientific studies of birds in 

the wild? 

The Pet Industry J oint Advisory Counc il (PIJAC) i s con cerned that the 

WBCA is too restrictive and is t herefore destroying the import industry. They 

claimed that there has been a d ecr e ase in the numbers of active importers from 

" 30-4 0 t o 6-7•. The WBCA was designed for the protection of birds, n o t the 

economic interests of a few. If the U.S. appeared as a l a r ge vacuum cleaner, 

the i mporters appeared to represent the nozzle. 

Another issue presented by the AAV representative concerns the 

inconvenience of the permit application process. The permit application 

process was not designed to be convenient, it was made to be thorough. It 

takes time t o verify the legitimacy of any r equest for import of species 

covered by Convention o n Interna tio nal Trade in Endangered Speci es (CITES) and 

the WBCA . My researc h in genetics requires feather samples from several CITES 

bird species. The feathers are collected in a non-destructive manner, ye t 

require import permits from the U.S. and export permits from the country of 

o rigin. My permit applications are l e ngthy requiring as l o ng as t hree months 

t o process. The avi c ulturists are not being singled out f or harass~ent. The 

USFWS conducts necessary investigations for each reque s t for i mportation of 

birds o r bird products. The p ermit application process is as lengthy as it 

needs t o be to ensure the protection of the birds. 

In my opinion the testimonies presented by the AFA. AAV and PIJAC are 

f ocu sed o n e liminating any r egulations within the WBCA that restrict 

convenient importation of exotic birds. Yet these regulations are prec i se ly 

what guard against inhumane treatment and over exploitation of birds in 

foreign countries. I do not interpret their testimonies as support for bird 

conservation in their native habitats. Their definition of conservation 

appears to be breeding rare species in captivity so a s to preserve them there 

f or eternity in an artificial environment . In my opinion the most impo r tan t 

role that aviculturists can play in conservation is to breed domestically 

those species that are in demand by the pet industry, thereby reducing demand 

on wi ld birds. Avicul turists may also play a role working c l ose ly with 
184 

zoological societies in closely monitored breeding programs for endangered 

species. 

There is a prevalence of ambiguous information being communicated to 

aviculturists in this country (see enclosed article and advertisement), which 

has resulted in confusion, misunderstanding, and antagonism toward the WBCA. 

The majority of aviculturists are in favor of protecting the exotic birds from 

non- regulated importation. They recognize the conservation and cruelty 

issues. However they are apparently under the mis-impression that birds 

brought into their facilities before the Act was implemented are subject to 

burdensome record keeping and mandatory marking . Additional misunderstanding 

concerns alleged plans by the WBCA to impose additional restrictions on 

domestic breeding facilities; yet the WBCA concerns solely foreign facilities. 

Many aviculturists fear they will loose their birds if the WBCA is not 

weakened. Many ayiculturists are c yrrent ly responding to Congress based on 

these misunderstandings 

Please do not weaken any amendments. The Act is still young and the 

wild birds need full protection. 

I, personally, take full responsibility for this testimony . It does not 

necessarily repres ent the views o f any organizations or institutions with 

whi ch I am affi liated . 

Sincerely, 

Patr1c1a ~h Wa1nr1g h t, P .D. 
185 

Curriculum Vitae 

Name: Patricia Wainright 

Address: Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences 

Rutgers University; New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0231 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE· 

1994 present Assistant Research Professor, J. Frederick Grassle 

1992 1994 Postdoctoral Associate, J. Frederick Grassle 

Laboratory Manager. 

1990 1992 Postdoctoral Associate, Marine Biological 

Laboratory (Woods Hole, MA), M.L. Sogin 

1990 1990 Guest Investigator, Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution, D. Prasher 

1987 1989 Postdoctoral Associate. Southeast Poultry Research 

Laboratory, USDA (Athens, GA), M. Perdue 

EQUCATIONAL BACKGROUND: 

1983 1987 University of Georgia, Ph.D. 

1980 1982 Florida Atlantic University, M.S. 

1978 1980 Florida Atlanti c University, B.A. 

FELLOWSHIPS· 

Predoctoral Fellowship: Department of Avian Medicine (4 years). 

MEMBERSHIPS: 

American Ornithologists' Union; The Society of Caribbean Ornithology; The 

Neotropical Ornithological Society; African Seabird Group; International 

Council for Bird Preservation; Association of Avian Veterinarians; Colonial 

Waterbird Society; British Ornithological Union; Association for Parrot 

Conservation; American Federation o f Aviculture; American Association of Avian 

Pathologists (past member) . 

CURRENT RESEARCH· 

Molecular genetics of the Amazon parrots from the Neotropics. 

Molecular genetics o f the seabirds found from the Bering Sea region. 

PUBLICATI ONS (Peer-Reviewed Journals): 

Kerk, D., A. Gee, M. Standish, P.O. Wainright, M.L. Sogin, Drum, A. Elston, R. 

The rosette agent of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is closely 

related to choanoflagellates, as determined by the phylogenetic analysis of 

its small ribosomal subunit RNA. Marine Biology 122 : 187-192. 1995. 

Leipe, D., P.O . Wa inright, D. Porter. D.J. Patterson, F. Valois, J.H. 

Gunderson, S. Himmerich, and M.L. Sogin. The stramenopiles from a molecular 

perspective : 16S-like rRNA sequences from Labyrinthuloides minuta and 

Cafeteria roenbergensis. Phycologia 33:369-377. 1994 . 

Wa inright, P.O., D.J. Patterson, M.L. Sog in. Monophyletic origin of animals; a 

shared ancestry with the fungi. In: Molecular Evolution of Physiological 

Processes, D.M. Fambrough, editor. Society of General Physiologists 49:39-54. 

1994. 

Wainright, P.O., G. Hinkle, M.L. Sogin, and S.K. Stickel. The monophyletic 

origin of the metazoa; an evolutionary link with fungi. Science 260:340-342. 

1993 . 
186 

Bhactacharya, D., L. Medlin, P. O. Wainright, E.V . Ariztia, C. Bibeau, S.K. 

Sticke l, M.L. Sogin. Algae containing chlorophylls ~ + ~ are paraphyletic: 

molecular evolutionary analysis o f the chromophyta. Evolution 46:1801-1817. 

19 92 . 

Hainright, P. Book Reviews: 1) Molecular Systematics. 1990. Hillis, O. M. and 

C. Moritz (eds). Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA. 588 pp. European 

Journal of Protistology 28:120-121. 1992. 2) Fundamentals of Molecular 

Evolution. 1991. W-H. Li and D. Graur. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, 

MA . 284 pp. European Journal of Protistology 28:121. 1992 . (Editor reviewed) 

Wainright, P.O. , M.L. Perdue, M. Brugh, and C.W. Beard. Amantadine resistance 

among hemaglutinin subtype 5 strains of avian influenza virus. Avian Diseases 

35:3 1-39. 1991. 

Perdue, M.L., P . O. Wainright, M. Brugh. Effects of chicken embryo age on time 

to death follow1ng infection by avian influenza viruses: Implications for 

distinguishing highly pathogenic isolates. Virus Research 16:137-152. 1990. 

Perdue, M.L., P . O. Wainright, S. Palmieri, and M. Brugh. In ovo competition 

between distinct vira l populations from an avian influenza isolate. Av ian 

Diseases 33:695-706. 1989. 

Wainright, P.O., P. Villegas, M. Brugh, and P.O. Lukert. Characterization of 

avian infectious bronchitis virus using monoclonal antibodies. Avian Diseas e s 

33:482-490. 1989. 

Wainright, P.O., P.O. Lukert, R.B. Davis, and P. Villegas. Serological 

evaluation of some psittaciformes to budgerigar fledgling disease virus. 

Avian Diseases 31:673-676. 1987. 

PUBLICATIONS (Qt.berl · 

Wainright, S. C. and P. 0. Wainright. Seabird observations on the Pribilof 

Islands, Alaska during August . Bird Watcher's Digest (To be submitted. 

November, 1995). 

Haney, J .C., M.V. Flint, A.N . Golovkin, P. Wainright, and S. Wainright. 

Ecosystem research of seabirds in the Bering Sea, Pribilof Islands, Alaska 

199 3. Beringian Seabird Bulletin 2:41-43. 1994. 

Wainright, P.O. Antigenic characterization studies of infectious bronchitis 

virus using monoclonal antibodies. Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy. pp. 1-

136. 1987. 

Wainright, P.O., P.O. Lukert, and R.B. Davis. Update on papovavirus infection 

in fledgling psittaciforrnes. Watchbird 14:34-37. 1987. 

Wainright, P .O., N. Pritchard, R.B. Davis, O.J. Fletcher, and S. Clubb. 

Identification of viruses from ama zon parrots with a hemorrhag ic syndrome and 

a chronic respiratory disease. In Proceedings of the First International 

Conference on Zoological and Avian Medicine. Oahu, HA. pp. 15-19. 1987. 

Davis, R.B., P.O . Lukert, d nd P.O. Wainright. An update of budgerigar 

fledgling disease. In Proceedings of the 33rd Western Poultry Disease 

Conference, Davis, CA. pp. 96-98. 1984. 
187 

Wainright, P. Effectiveness of antiherpeti c compounds on Pacheco's disease 

v irus of psittacines. Thesis, Master of Science. pp. 1-76. 1983. 

Wainright, P.O. Preliminary bacteriolo gy in psittaciformes, with procedures, 

for the i dentification of the bacteria present. In Proceedings of the Annual 

Meeting Association of Avian Veterinarians, Atlanta, GA. pp. 58-90. 1982. 

REVIEWER FOR· 

Marine Bio logy , Biol ogical Bulletin, Avian Pathology , Massachusetts Sea Grant 

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution), European Journal of Protistology. 

PRESENTATIONS · 

Wainright, P.O., R. Gnam, and J. Wiley. Annual Meeting of the Society of 

Caribbean Ornithol ogy. Phylogeographica l study of Amazona spp. from the 

Caribbean Islands. Martinique, West Indies. August , 1994. 

Perdue, M.L., P.O. Wainright, and M. Brugh. American Veterinary Medical 

Associa t on 126th Annual Meeting . Ju ly, 1989. 

Publi•hed AbatractJ 

Chicken embryo age effects on time to death measurements with avian influenza 

v iruses: Potential for rapid identification of highly pathogenic strains. 

Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 194(12) :1208. 1989. 

Wainright, P . O., M.L. Perdue, C.W. Beard. American Veterinary Medical 

Association 125th Annual Meeting. July, 1988. 

Publiahed Abatractr 

The susceptibility of virulent and avirulent isolates of HS avian influenza 

virus to amantadine. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 

192(12) :1779. 1988. 

Wainri9ht, P.O., N. Pritchard, B.S. Davis, O.J. Fletcher, and S. Clubb. First 

International Conference of Association of Avian Veterinarians and American 

Association of Zoo Veterinarians. September, 1987 . 

Publ1ahed Abatractt 

Identification of viruses from amazon parrots with a hemorrhagic syndrome and 

a chroni c respiratory disease. Veterinary Bulle tin 58:104. 1988. 

Wainright , P.O., M. Brugh. and P . Vi llegas. American Veterinary Medical 

Association l24th Annual Meeting . July, 1987. 

Publ1abed Abatractt 

Preliminary comparisons o f nine strains o f infectious bronchitis virus, using 

monoclonal antibodies. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 

190 ( 12) : 1628 . 1987. 

Wainright, P . O. and J .X. Hartmann . American Veterinary Medical Association 

121st Annual Meeting. July, 1984 . 

Publ1ehe4 Abatract t 

Effectiveness of anti-herpetic compounds on Pacheco's disease virus of 

psittacines. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 

185(3):337 . 1984. 

Wainright. P.O. {Invited lecturer) As sociation of Avian Veterinarians Annual 

Meeting . Preliminary bacteriology in psittaciformes. June 1982. 
Dale R. Thompson; Editor-in-Chief 

American Federa on of Aviculture 

3118 West Thomas Road; #713 

Phoenix, AZ 85017 -5308 

Dear Mr. Thomps on: 

188 

18 Oc tober 1995 

am writing to you regarding the article •conservation and Aviculture• 

by Ri ck Jordan. I f i nd this artic le t o be extremely inappropriate. Mr. 

Jordan 's statenH:nts are either based on misinformation or were purposefully 

chosen so as t o misl e ad readers in fav o r of the author's biased and erroneous 

views. It is publ i s hed as the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) is being 

reviewed in Conq ress fo r re-authorization. Mr. Jordan's reference to the WBCA 

as "stupid" is unprofessional for the First Vice-President of AFA. 

At the same time that AFA representatives testified at a recent 

Congressiona l Hearing stat i ng tha t the U.S. government should fund biological 

studies in the t~ld (to conduc t s u s ta i nable-use research programs), Mr. 

J ordan outrageously criticizes stud ies a lre ady conducted on parrot species. 

Mr. Jordan is misleading the readers of the AFA Watchbird by giving inaccurate 

accounts of wo rk done by several emi nent scientists. For example, he referred 

to a study in the Bahamas (" ... one i so lated island ... •) as irresponsible and 

useless. However, as a result of this study, the Bahamas government 

established a Nat ional Park solely t o protect this parrot subspecies from 

extinction. Dr Rosemarie Gnarn's work was directly responsible for the 

fru ition of t his park. 

I wi l l n ot: c ite further examples in h is article because they are too 

numerous, and l udic r ous. However , I will comment o n the article as a whole. 

The recurring the me i s an attack on all research on parrots in the wild. Such 

research, he claims, is wasteful; the ~way to save species is to breed 

them in captivi ty and maintain them i n 'living museums'. This approach is 

narrow-minded and g l oomy. Is th is the philosophical approach to conservation 

tha t the AFA endorses? I f so, it is pathetic. 

Wi th this artic l e, Mr . J o rda n is pitting the conservation biologists and 

a v i cu ltu r ists against each o ther. While ac the end o f his statement he c laims 

that conservation and avicultur e can wo rk together, I doubt that any 

conserva t i on fiE~ld bio l og ist would consider working together with 

aviculturists such as Mr Jordan aft er reading his inflanunatory article. 

find Mr. Jordan' s ma nner of commun ication deceitful t o your readers. He is 

trying to fire thE!m up to support n e w amendments that would 'gut' the WBCA, 

rendering it in E~ffective for wild bird conservation. 

How c a n the AFA c lai m a conservation r o le when you publish articles such 

as this? 

S i nce rely, 

Dr. Patricia Wainright 

Assistant Research Professor 

Rutgers University 

AFA Member 

cc: Drs. 'Rosemarie Gnam , Noe l Snyder, James Wiley 

Ro b e r t J B~ y and Dr. Benny Gal l oway 

Ho n o rable Jame s Saxt on and Members o f the House Subconunittee o n 

F ish eries, Wi ld l ife, and Oceans 
Parrbts · Get·Park 

20~500 Acres -

·- -:. ~-.. 

,~.:

' ,// 

· / ··. I 

,""' I 

I 

I 

I 

I 
md 

iD 

gated 

ful 

er. 

til-

'Jut 

ing 

iler 

the 

;sito 

lS, 

be 

to 

>0-

ni-

>rd 

tal 

he 

'"" 

•is 

>g· 

:t. 

""' p;-

OD 

190 

PAllors FIIOM hfiii 1 the natwal forest habitat by various ceo· 

aomic and development activities and the: 

clcstl'llCtion of nestling by wild cats," said 

lite Prime Minister. 

"The park is a significant addition to 

tbe nalional park system in The Baha· 

ma. It will serve as another protected 

aru for the resl and recreation of future 

generations of Bahamians aod visitors to 

our shores." 

"Let me also say wilb much thanks 

and gratitude thai .. .the children of the 

Hope Town All Age School aud children 

from all over The Bahamas have been 

Very consistent and pe~stent in their 

effor1s to ensure that today came about. 

"We, as a country with twelve national 

pub, are distinguishable from any and 

all others in our regjon. IDdeed:, on the 

issue of environment, we can be justifi·· 

ably proud of what we have done and we 

can also be justifiably proud of whai the 

Engineering boat loose ond threw it up on the ohol'B. 'nle cowling ~ to Natiooal Tius1 has dooe oud is doiog. 

be 1'8placed but the boa1 ~minor damage. Daylight found a~ ' "It h15 bcco aod cOntiooesto-be a very 

boa1 on the rocka at h:oi\Point. . . ' , -~,, .: teSpODSible organizatioo, taking run 

New M H Sunfish Racing Schedule 

By UIDD KaighiD 

The Mush Harbour Sailing Cob is 

excitedly looking forward to Saturday, 

June 25th, when a fun day Ot sunfish 

S.Uiing, fun races and cookout is plinned. 

The event will be held at Pond Bay 

Bu.ch. The main attraction is an iuteoded 

"Masters• race for members of the 

MHSC who may not be active in the club 

at the present time. This prestigious Jist 

includes the likes of Jack Albury, Allan 

Lowe, S1ewut Stratton, Rowan Higp, 

Astrid Stratton, Donald Lowe, Lewis Key, Marcell Albury, L.uciill Stranoa, Robbie Higgs, Will Bethel. and Timmy 

Higgs. 1be MHSC encourages its 

::::: :.d.:y.:h;r;;.;e:u~a!;= ,.·.:··-·· , ... ·.-_.;.···_ . 

il takes 10 win a sunfish race. 

The secood sunfish festivity scheduled 

for the summer months is the Sth Anllual 

R.T.I.A Sunfish Regatta. This is 

ioteoded for Satutdaf, JDly 2Dd, !994. 

Three races in tbe morning aod three 

after lunch will coDSiitutc the regatta. A 

light Joocb will be provided dorlng' tile 

break. 'There iJ a $10.00 registration fee 

for entry ill this event. Skippers' mcctia& 

is sdleduled for 10:00 a.m. al Pond Bay 

BeKh with race times to be announced a1 

1bat_ meeting. 

If yoa have any qoestioM about this 

regana or arc interested in bringing the 

family out to our fun day, please contact 

Commodore Jim Kaighio at367-3086, MF. 9-S. 

acx:o11Dt of economic demauds and need 

of our country and balandng tba1 in 

terms of our environmental considerarion·. 

" ... We look forward to not only the 

prcsc:rvation of the Bahama Parrot in 

Abaco but we look forward to the ia· 

crease of its population much the same as 

ihc fish in the Natioaal Park ia lllagu.a 

has 'increased substantially as a result of 

dedsioDS·IakCD JoaDy yUrl qo.• 

1be Prime .Minister also said that 

eoviroumental activists, rcpor1cdly repre· 

seating some S,OOO penons, sent him a 

lener that said they wiiJ settle for nothing 

Jess tbm a total bu. ou long-line fishing. 

He continued, •ne govemmcot of 

The Bahainas bas bi.DD.ed long line fishing. The govemmeut bas great rc:sped 

for organizations like the Trust and en~­

roumentalists. • 
191 

ALERT!!! 

THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA ... 

NO MORE BIRDS 

READ: 

"Animal Rights: The Inhumane CnlSade" 

Do you know the animal rights organizations, their programs in the public schools, 

their goals in your city and county and how they are accomplishing them? Order 

this book and have the details at your finger tips. With this straight forward 

information you can alert your family and friends, your local bird club officials and 

members, your city council members. your county supervisors. and state representatives. Comprehensive information on all major animal rights groups, their 

funding and their goals . 

.aiW'\VAR"r:!SICE~.IIJBDS. YOU NEED THIS INFORMATION TO HELP 

YOU PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS! THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN 

EFFECTIVE IN RESTRICTING AND PROHIBITING KEEPING AND BREEDING OF 

BIRDS AND ANIMALS. THEY HAVE BEEN BUSY OBTAINING CHANGES IN LOCAL 

REGULATIONS, Sf ATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND SECURING PASSAGE OF 

THEWsa:co.aav~oF 1992. 

AFA is purchasing a bulk order of these books so that we can offer them to AFA 

membersandclubsatareasonableprice.OrderyourcopynowofANlMALRIGHTS: 

THE INHUMANE CRUSADE by Daniel T. Oliver, at the low price of$14 for one copy, 

two for $25, and five for $55. Price includes postage and handling. Order YOUR 

copy NOW!! 

EVERY BIRD CLUB SHOULD HAVE 1HIS BOOK IN 1HEIR CLUB UBRARYI 

EVERY AVICULTIJRISf SHOULD HAVE TifiS BOOK IN HIS/HER UBRARY! 

ORDER EXTRA COPIES FOR YOUR PUBLIC LIBRARY! 

Send your check to: 

AFA 

P.O. Box 56218 

0 1-$14 

(j 2- $25 

Phoenix, AZ 85079-6218 0 5-$55 

OR CALL IN YOUR ORDER: 602-484-0931 

AND USE YOUR VISA/MASTERCARD 

OR FAX IN YOUR ORDER: 602-484-0109 

AND USE YOUR VISA/MASTERCARD 
192 

BREEDER~'-~ B_U_lf..~_T_lli_:_2.r~::. ~;~ ~.~~~~ ~~-=~~_::-~AGJ;c_j j 

I BIRD L\ ws A:\]) YOl' I Roudybush · Lafeber · Zeigler 

fhc Fi~h <md \\'ildlifc Sen icc {F\\'SJ met ''lth Con,!!rcss Scptcmbcr ~K. 19Y:'i to 

present their report compiled from publiC mput on ;1 \OiuntJT) program of labcltng 

of exotic birds and ccrtifK.1tion ofhrcrdin,!! faL'ilnics and rct<lil outlets 

Marion Zoological: Scenic Foods 

Mark Phillips. General Biologist '' 1th the F\\'S. mentioned that the ;n !Culture and 

conscr\ation sides were aOOut cquall~ rcprc!'Cnlcd A\icullurists. Phillips s.1id. 

were asking that the offspring of illcg<llly imported birds be constdcrcd legal. 

thereby eliminating the liability of purchasers of those offspring He s.1.id ::1\-icu\tur· 

isis also asked for the frC(' importation of captiw bred birds 

Phillips said the conscn ationists were concerned that if capti,·c bred birds were 

deleted from consideration. that illegal wild-caught birds could Sllllpl~ be labeled 

1 as capth·e bred _and i~~por1cd legally. FWS is sending us a packet out linin!! attendees and the1r pos1t10ns. but for now we 

Premium Bird & Reptile Diets 

Busy Beaks Bird To_r3 

Snd Moth Traps· Carnic/de Insecticide 

Jones Seed Co· Brooks B,..nd Seed 

Manzanita Perches • Be•k Appetit 

C&J's Parrot Pals· Sprout Mix 

About Birds 815 648-4078 

P.O. Bo:o::JI7,11SO.! lbple, HeblfHIIL fCOJU:JI7 

Producr Ordtrs Only 100 18irtis0 (714-TJTO) 

only 

and HaJJ)' 

have Burroughs, phone statcm~nts. Dnector from 

of the 

Phillips Sub- /!t commince on Fisheries. Wildlife & Oceans CWip,>rnifl, Burroughs said. "I rccci'cd a whole lot of 

live 

letters 

br<d requesting birds from deletion the WBCA. of domestic I can't capsec ~ ~ <"/'] ~ 

~ 

that happening. since the Act has no effect \/ {J V, 1 

~~~~~~;~i~~~~~~ ~~~~~a;;;;,j~·~;;~m?J 1 Corp. · Quality cage products This is being re\'iewed by Congress now It is 

very important that our voices be heard. Our 

UA\ian Regulatol)' Watchdog." Ed Hamilton 

suggests writing your Congressman today! 

Indicate that \OU are a constituent in his/her 

district and -include that the lfBC1 11m 

written to protect wild birds, not to regulate 

capttw brud;rig. Be sure to request ckldion 

of all ~plations conaming captive brerd- ing. 

Your letters WILL J/ELP and tl1c quantity 

must outnumber that from animal rights 

groups! So tell your fellow breeders and write 

your Congressman today!!! 

Lynn W. Reed, Editor 

Holl;k;YourBird~ _,. 

• WinQ ClippmiJS 

• N.l~ Clippings 

•BNl< Clipping& 

• GM!"IQ MM~oc.it101l5 

•EITWir~roc:yFir~tlud 

•Broken Blood Feathers 

for most hookbill birds 

AMEX • Visa • MasterCard • Discover 

Sn.:lvBot.IDE11 

P o. eo~ s5&09 HousTON, TX 77255 

1-800-460-6355 ! 

--~·-··- -·-------- ____ . .J 

... will enhance lhe breeding polenlial ol your birds 

112"x3",...sht2pa. 

suitablebr 

•wrrylhingfrom 

FinchllMacaws. 

t"x3-Mesh10Q&. 

suitable for 

lalgerAmazona, 

Macaws and Cocbtooe. 

Most versatile cage on the market today 

I • Used by many well-known breeders and bird farms I 

rorJ ~ rT' ~ ["\:J Seh ~ L.._r L_J;9 ~ Wlrel•tch 

UNIN•stBox.. 1"x1'" Spring~ ' 

Roll WI,. Squ•,. -._.M lo.:.~~ clip pllera 

Custom Aviary Design 

-~ Single Unns • Breeding Complexes c9 Wind Panels • Roof Siructures 

~ Calorwri•bi'I'IOI'eillormation. 

e· x 9'" •nd 12'" x12" 

Feed Doo,. 

with Inside 

1 (818) 843-MATE 

Fax 1 (818) 843-7409 Feed Tr•v- HOURS: wllabl• Monclay-Friday,Va.m.·5p.m. Satun:t.y, 10 a.m.- 2 p.m. 

3314 Burton Ave., Burbank, CA91504 .,. ... 

~AI\..l!.t ~ NATIONWIDESHIPPING. 

;::>o ~o: !1uality cage products that don't bite/ 

Dooro 
193 

can indicate such findings as kidney disease, presence of excessive 

glucose or sugar in the urine (may 

be suggestive of diabetes), kidney function, and possibility of 

heavy metal poisoning. 

Conservation 

and Aviculture • Polyomavirus - This deadly virus 

disease may be identified with 

use of the DNA probe test, from the 

droppings of affectro and shedding 

birds. 

by Rick Jordan 

Kutztown, Pennsylvania 

• Liver disease - Decreased function, inflammation of, or infection 

or insult to the liver may be suggested by a change of the droppings (usually the urate portion, 

which normally is white in coloration, is affected). Further diagnostic tests such as serum 

chemistries or specific tests for 

psittacosis may be warranted. 

• Psittacosis (Parrot Fever) - several diagnostic tests are available 

that detect the presence of or react 

to the presence of the causative 

organism of psittacosis, Chlamydia 

psittaci. 

Amy B. Wore!!, DVM Dip!. ABVP. 

West Hills, CA. +-

TV hat is conservation? Webster W defines the word as "the act of 

keeping frorp depletion." How docs 

this relate to' breeding birds in captivity? If you ask this question of an 

aviculturist they will say they arc 

breeding birds so they will exist when 

the habitat has been totally destroyed 

and no more specimens exist in the 

wild. That certainly qualifies as "the 

act of keeping from depletion." If you 

ask a conservationist how aviculture 

is related to conservation they will 

usually tell you there is little corrda· 

tion between the two .. So who is the 

most correct? Are we, as aviculturists, 

wasting our time or are we actually 

doing some good for the future of 

certain bird species? 

A controversy has arisen between 

aviculture and "in the wild" conservation. Suddenly there seems to be 

competition between the captlve 

breeders and the field biologists who 

both seck the same goal, to save birds 

in the wild. This competition is not 

helping the birds but, instead, hampering captive breeding efforts for 

many rare and endangered birds. 

Birds that are in need of assistance if 

they are to survive in their natural 

habitat for years to come. 

The relationship between captive 

breeding and conservation in the wild 

Save up to 47°/o off the cover price! 

YESJ Please send me !IJ.tR.P as follows: 

0 7 issues for only $14.97 (Sav~ 37% off th~ covc=r price) 

0 14 issues for only $24.97 eN,.,=«<< ____ ~----------

(Save 47% off th~ cover price) 

(USfund.>only--Cana<baddSI.OOp<fiswt;forei"'addSlOOpo<<iuu<) 

0 Paytncnl EnclOS«< 0 Bill Me 

Charge My 0 Visa 0 Masl~rGrd 0 Amex 

Mdrcss 

--- ~- -- ---------- ~- ------

________ §tare Zi 

Phone 

jui/Au~Wacchl:H<d 

Please fax: (305) 592-9726 or ma1l to: Caged Bird Hobbyist, 5400 NW 84th Avenue, Miami, FL 33126 

afa WATCHUIRO 45 
is very difficult to define. Perhaps 

there is no relationship between dlc 

two. Perhaps we must all adjust our 

thoughts to accept the fact that, in 

these changing times, there arc two 

distinctly different sectors of conservation, captive breeding and 

conservation in the wild. Unfortunately, most of the regulations that 

have been promulgated by our government arc geared rowards the 

benefit of the species in the wild. This 

eliminates the participation efforts of 

captive breeding in any given conservation program that is funded by the 

government. It also gives the field 

biologist the upper hand when seeking justification for a new "program" 

to be funded by the government. 

The above scenario is a sad one 

indeed. It docs not consider the one 

fact that has led to the demise of most 

species in the first place, habitat 

destruction. Although collection for 

the pet trade and breeder trade is 

blamed for the disappearance of many 

species in the wild, man's interference 

in the habitat is really the cause of it 

alL So we arc funding more interference, ignoring captive conservation, 

and continuing to cut the habitat on 

a daily basis. In the mean time, .. save 

the world biologistS .. arc out there 

hanging unnatUral nests, counting 

birds, shooting birds, and writing 

their doctoral disscnacions on the 

possible extinction of yc1 another 

species of bird. Then there arc a few 

who arc participiring in release programs that boggle the mind with 

justified, governmentally funded, stupidity. 

On one isolated island we have a 

biologisr who needs to ge t a doctorate 

degree. What docs she do to get it 

except sit in the wild and observe a 

very rare species of Amazon parrm 

auemp1 to nest in a new habitat filled 

with feral catS. Did she ever stop and 

consider that perhaps the decline of 

this bird was due ro exactly that which 

they are observing. Common house 

cats that have gone wild arc destroying 

the nests, and in some cases. even the 

laying hen in the nest. Did th is field 

biologist do anything to help the birds 

or did she only study the nests, write 

a dissertation and collect her new 

degree and move on to a new job? As 

an aviculturist, the first thing that I 

would have done is have the cats 

194 

destroyed! The only way for this 

species to recover is to restore the 

habitat to what it was and make it safe 

for the birds to nest successfully. 

Imerestingly enough, this biologist 

is very anti-captive breeding. She feels 

that the demise of most of these rare 

birds was due 10 collection for the 

trade. However, in all my world uavcls 

and all the aviaries, public and private. 

that I have visited, there are NO 

representatives of this species in captivity. Whoops there goes another one 

of those ... 

Right about the same time, there 

was another governmentally funded 

biologist trying to re-establish a parrot 

species in an area where it has not been 

seen since the 1930's. This habitat is 

hostile and full of predatOrs. Could 

this have been the reason that the birds 

disappeared from here in the first 

place? I guess not. The biologist continued to release birds into this area 

only to find them killed or missing 

completely. Surely there must have 

been another reason these birds have 

moved out of this area. 

This same species has another 

range. A range where it is quite 

common and not in a highly threatened-· position, unless of course 

someone decides they need the lumber. Why not release birds into this 

area where they already exist in 

adequate numbers and the newly 

released can learn from the birds that 

arc already there. Of course this would 

not be such an exciting project and 

may nor receive as much press and 

prestige as starting an entirely new 

group in an uninhabited area. Instead, 

the final published result of the pro· ject is summarized as ·reintroduction 

of birds is not feasible. captive bred 

birds arc not suitable: for release." 

Strike another blow against aviculrure. 

If you really want to sec conservation at work, take a good look ar the 

government project on one of the 

northern Caribbean Islands. In the 

early 1980's there were an estimated 

50 representatives in the wild. Everyone jumped through the hoop tO help 

save the bird. Of course none were 

taken off the island and placed with 

captive breeders who could have 

done some good with them. Instead. 

captured pairs were set up on the 

island (some pairs were two females), 

and the results of this captive-breeding farce were used to deny captive 

breeding as a viable option. The 

species continued to decline in the 

wild. As far as anyone knows, this bird 

is still in decline. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent by 

the tax payers to save this bird and yet 

the results of this project are difficult 

if nat impos.-;iblc to acquire. My guess 

is that the projcc1 has done little to 

save this bird. If it were a successful 

project wouldn't the biologists in 

charge want the world to know what 

they have done? 

I would like to congratulate one 

conservation effort by Mr. Paul Butler 

and his associates. It appears that the 

educational campaign that he has 

been involved with in the lower 

Caribbean Islands has resulted in an 

increase in the number of birds that 

are in the wild. Keep up the good work 

Mr. Butler, could you possibly share 

some of your knowledge and insight 

with the biologists in these other 

programs? 

Another conservation effort that 

warrants mention is the Mauritius 

Parakeet project that is funded, in 

part, by the World Parrot Trust, a 

group of captive breeders and others 

I might like to add. This project shows 

great potential and is beginning to 

demonstrate a connection bc.twcen 

captlve breeding and wild habitat 

management. 

Why am I so cynical, you might a.o;k. 

Am I the only one that sees that the 

govcrnmcmally funded projectS 

around the world are not working? 

How many Kakapo have been bred 

since the government stepped into 

thal project? How many Pueno Rican 

Amazons~ The list can go on bur it 

would only be depressing. Remember. "You can't fight City HalL" 

Let's take a look at an interesting 

conservation effort for the Splx's 

Macaw. Oh the scandal it is. There is 

only one left in the wild. In this case, 

collecting for the trade did in fact 

deplete the wild, but there were only 

a few left in the wild anyway. If we 

had waited for the many "do right" 

governments tO Step in there would 

have been none. So, pairs of this bird 

were taken from the wild and ended 

up in private collections around the 

world. There was a "kind of hush, all 

over the world" as to who had them. 
Only a few would announce the 

existence of these birds in their collections. My hat goes off to you ... that 

took a lot of guts. 

195 

breeders? 

It appears that many laws are being 

passed that are contrary to conservation. Some of this can be blamed on 

ignorance, but some of it is, beyond 

any doubt, due to some type of hidden 

agenda. Someone doesn't want birds 

bred in cages. These same people 

believe that eninction is part of the 

natural order and should not be 

interfered with. I am sure glad these 

same people arc not in charge of 

finding a cure for the many illnesses 

that plague mankind. We would all 

be doomed to die an early death. 

Conservation and aviculture can 

work together. If we must view the 

world as two separate "groups," those 

born in captivity, and those born in 

the wild, then so be it. But, at the same 

time we cannot allow someone tO stap 

captive breeding or there will only be 

one group thar remains, the most 

vulnerable group of all. Why can't 

conservation be content to know that 

the bird docs in fact, live, breath, and 

breed in a cage somewhere in the 

world? In the end there will be no 

habitat tO release any wild animals 

into. It will be as absurd as a release 

program for Tigers in downtown Los 

Angeles. -+ 

So, there arc maybe five or six pairs 

in captivity around the world, about 

nineteen in the zoo in the country of 

origin, and a few in pet homes, as 

single birds, in the country of origin. 

I Should mention that there arc several hundred dead ones in the 

museums around the world that have 

been shot by ornithologists but, I am 

sure they would not have bred anyway, right? In any case, none have 

been bred in the country of origin, 

none have been bred by the pet owners, but many have been bred by ,--------------------------

the "collector" who managed to get 

them. Yes, you heard me right, many 

have been bred in captivity. Docs this 

justify conservation? I say. "hell yes." 

The world's population of this species 

has been almost doubled by the few 

pairs that arc in the hands of the 

breeders. One point for aviculturc! 

How about the Blue-throated macaw from Bolivia? A few years ago 

they were extremely expensive to 

purchase because they were so rare in 

captivity. Now, thanks to captive 

breeding they are available and are 

not much more expensive than the 

common Blue and Gold Macaw. Another point for aviculturc! 

Blue-throated Conurcs, Crimsonbellied Conures, Hoffman's Conurc, 

Queen of Bavaria Conurc, Cuban 

Amazon, Vinaceous Amazon. H yacinth Macaws, Ducorp's Cockatoos, 

White-cared Conurcs, all arc now 

available as captive bred birds from 

many breeders across the world. 

There are upward of 200 species 

available from breeders somewhere. 

Captive breeding is working. It is 

"'keeping free from depletion" those 

birds that are in need of help. It even 

helps to conserve wild flocks. If 

breeders can buy captive bred birds from other breeders they will not 

need to look to the wild for any more 

birds. So, I guess conservation in the 

wild and captive breeding do have 

something in common. Why then is 

it so difficult to get the two groups to 

work together? Why docs our own 

government pass stupid laws like the 

"Wild Bird Conservation Act of 

1992 .. and make it so difficult to 

import captive bred birds from other 

ceoe 

BIRD FOODS 

The World's Most 

Renown Supplement 

for Breeding, 

Conditioning and 

Special Treat 00iissoldin40cot~~triesrhrough25maindistributorssrntteredoverfivecontinenfs,afacfwhichspeoksforrtself. 

ceoe nesding foods are made with egg aumbs, whole groin crumbs, honeys, amino acids, vitamins ond minerals, oil 

loborot«y balonced, which makes the mixes indispjlRSIIble f(N" daily feeding, breeding pon, during mouhing lime and 

as treot ar snack. (606 comes in ~ve different formulas, depending on the type of birds you will be feeding. 

WHY USE UD! FOODS? Animal protein (ogvsl has a (191 biologiml value IVERY IMPOIUAHI WIIEIIIIIIDING BIRDS! as wol as~ 

and~pids.Astad<ofaminaacidslllliphasphatusoa,....in~""'"'"'"""caki""llllifat.ltmostbewol 

boknced with Yitamins and, nem to be forgotten, Pfedous minerals, which wil give excelent resWts in breeding, growmg. plunage, in alho-wardsa beautiful lilishodspo<inen.lsn'thagaad "'""" useonlylho best? ... Cilli 

(jo;lt!Jtood 

/.x(unariesandlinches 

cnlgnraiUY 

1 ~ik. buxi2.21H.) 12 per case 

\Kg.boxSs.JO+shipping 

CiDiltJI..dlo4 

c.lar ..... t ...... mllrfu!Canaries 

........ ..moGooolh. 

IIAI ... {!.!IIs.ll!p«m• Jr,.-.s6.2s • ....., 

CiDi_ ........ ..., ... 

l ..... onol ... -1 SOOpmii.IL.IID,...ca 

.SOOp. bor.S4.70+slippinf 

CiDiP.tlet11 

l« ..... ..d ......... 

1killbox(UIH.I12perarst 

\Kg.lloxS5.30+slipping 

CiDiiiD<f«-

SOOpmll.llls.l 

IO!*case 500gr.S4.10+sllijlping 

CiDilllllvlrMIIorSoltbls 

fruii/I!Sidlllllrs. 

11Ao ... {2.211s.161"'"" l(t.lloxS5.~+slipping 

...... -.. $11.00. ..... 

Visa • Master Card or AMEX orders are shipped within 24 hours 

SllNSHINE BIRD SUPPLIES A OlorlliQnot"Tt.Higgi'IIGroupCorp. 

8535 NW 56th Street • Miami, FL 33166 Ph: (305) 593-2666 • Fax: (305) 591-9567 

afa WATCHBIRD 47 

0 
ISBN 0-16-052041-X 

90000 

9 780160 520419