stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (06/10/91)
First summary (as promised) of Canadian Parrot Symposium: Why Aviculturalists Should Support Regulation of the Wild Bird Trade by Ron Orenstein, Project Director, Internation Wildlife Coalition ----------------- Mr. Orenstein started his talk by presenting facts that support his belief that trade in most birds will be elimiated by around 1996 with some exceptions for zoos. (References to 2 bills before congress, in Europe, and at IUCN (World Conservation Union)). His talk was aimed at convincing aviculturalists to support these efforts and offered proof that they would be good for us. Mr. Orenstein stated that the pet trade (through PIJAC) and aviculturalists have been opposed to stopping the bird trade, and have been highly emotional in their treatment of most proposals regarding it. These reactions have damaged the credibility of aviculturalists within the conservation community. Aviculturalists must learn the diffence between attempted control of wild bird trade (which would permit "managed import of small number of birds that may be needed to establish or bolster captive gene pools") and control of aviculture (something only supported by fringe conservation groups). His arguments against the wild bird trade (as it now exists) are that it is wastefule and inhumane, that it reduces wild populations, that it does not contribute sustantial income for local people, and that there exists no proof of viability of sustainable wild bird trade. The bird trade is practiced primarily in pristine habitats and "birds disappear ... long before the habitat itself is threatened." None of these are "criticisms of responsible aviculture." He then suggested that some parrot breeders are finding it difficult to compete with the wild bird trade (in terms of selling babies) and cited an editorial in the Pionus Breeders Associations Newsletter. He went on to state that when a species is readily available (wild caught) that less success is obtained in domestic breeding (because less effort is applied). He went on to disuss the need for increased regulation. He stated that the current trade mechanisms (including CITES) were ineffective. For example, in 1984 American records show 4820 birds exported to Canada, and Canadian records show 587 birds imported from the United States. CITES II in particular has had little impact on smuggling. (side note, Canada is now preparing legislation to permit it to deal much better with controlling CITES listed species). He suggested that the "most effective way to improve enforcement would be an outright ban on their [birds] import except under very special, carefully controlled cirumstances." "To be truly effective, though, a trade ban must be international in scope." He referred to a study by Laura Simon that shows that the New York state law banning sale of wild-caught birds had not been detrimental to the pet trade. [sjw: I think Gary Lilienthal had strong opposing view to this statement.] Regulation is coming and a "knee-jerk opposition to it will mean that your views are not likely to be heard" and will be "seen by conservations as self-serving." Input into regulation bills could be important. For example, "I undestand that a bill introduced in Michigan, seeking to restrict ownership of certain species of pet birds, actually sought to differentiate for that purpose among colour morphs [colour mutations] of lovebirds. Ignorant drafting [of regulations] helps nobody." Aviculturalists are missing out on opportunities to help save rare parrots because they are not trusted by the conservation community (example of Puerto Rican Parrot was cited.) He argues that aviculturalists should be active in upholding the law (whether they approve of it or not), and reporting and boycotting unscrupulous dealers and importers. Aviculturalists should work actively within breeding consortiums (where personal owernship of the bird would be illegal). "Those who can help save rare species are trustees for all of us and should act accordingly." --------------------------- This summarizes most of his points. It was a rather lengthy talk and so some stuff has been chopped down quite a bit, but I think the general idea comes across. Personally, I think he makes a lot of good points and I support the idea of a ban provided that it is not beyond the patience of a small experienced breeder to go through the process required to obtain an endangered bird. Also, I imagine a great deal of trouble in showing proof of domestic breeding (gene tests would work, but they are very expensive). But I think it is abundantly clear that 3rd world countries do not have the resources to police their wildlife resources, and that policework will have to be done in the 'target' countries. I'll try to write up Gary Lilienthal's talk next weekend ... it is a bit shorter and the AFA certainly holds a more moderate position that Mr. Orenstein. Stewart -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: stewartw%cognos.uucp@ccs.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario The bird of the day is .... Green-Cheeked Conure CANADA K1G 3Z4
ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) (06/11/91)
In article <9718@cognos.UUCP>, stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: [pertinent comments by speaker deleted....thanks for typing that in, Stewart] > I'll try to write up Gary Lilienthal's talk next weekend ... it is > a bit shorter and the AFA certainly holds a more moderate position > that Mr. Orenstein. Unfortunately, in my mind, the AFA position is unworkable because it calls for a gradual phase out of birds from the pet trade over a 5 year period. I don't believe we have that much time to spare. The habitats are being destroyed NOW. Mikki Barry
kdb@intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (06/11/91)
In article <9718@cognos.UUCP>, stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: > Aviculturalists > must learn the diffence between attempted control of wild bird > trade (which would permit "managed import of small number of birds > that may be needed to establish or bolster captive gene pools") and > control of aviculture (something only supported by fringe conservation > groups). Cool, as an Aviculturalist I agree that bird importation HAS to be stopped. However, I also believe that small numbers of birds need to be imported to help keep the genitic pool diversified, and help to establish captive breeding programs, not just for the pet trade. I also believe that what the US and other countries ought to do is establish accredidation for "certified breeders" and allow ONLY those (hey I don't even think that ALL ZOO's should be allowed into this program) to "purchase" breeding stock that would be brought in every other year. The high cost of bringing these birds in properly one to a travel cage, correctly feed, quarentined, etc. should be passed along to the purchaser. This would allow new breeding stock to be brought into countries, and keep it humane. On the other end, capture stations should sex birds and test for overall health and fertility. Then ONLY those birds would be brought over. A quota system would have to be put into place based on various factors such as locally available habitat, number in the wild, etc.. Once a species was established in the importing country imports would be dropped to once every five years (or so). Sorry for the terseness of this note, but that's my idea in a nutshell. I believe that this would work, even for countries who now allow NO exportation. This would keep the population in the wild, and help establish a captive population which could be tapped at some point to reestablish wild populations if we as a species every figures out that we don't need to rape every acre of land on this world. Oh, any "profits" from the sales of breeders could be directly funnelled back to the exporting country earmarked for use in helping study, manage, and preserve the wild flocks. Well that's my two cents. Kurt Baumann 703.709.9890 InterCon Systems Corp. Creators of fine TCP/IP products for the Macintosh
stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (06/12/91)
In article <2853E76D.2B5D@intercon.com> ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry) writes: >[pertinent comments by speaker deleted....thanks for typing that in, Stewart] Just happy to see it's been read. >Unfortunately, in my mind, the AFA position is unworkable because it calls for >a gradual phase out of birds from the pet trade over a 5 year period. I don't >believe we have that much time to spare. The habitats are being destroyed NOW. The rational behind it (as I have heard both AFA and PIJAC (specifically Mark Hagen) reps suggest) is that gradual phase out gives aviculturalists time to import birds which are not endangered (yet) and haven't had much attention paid to them by aviculturalists because of the high import availability. Good examples are some of the small conures (like Peach-Fronts and Green Cheeked) which aren't that easy to find (in Canada at least). Many finches fit into the same category. Most of the more 'prized' species are available in sufficient numbers that it is not required. Also, there has been some recognition of late the many of the 'regional subspecies' of some birds (like say military macaws) hasn't had nearly enough attention paid to it, and that repeated breeding across subspecies is starting to cause problems. The 5 year phase-out would give time to obtain known sub-species to set up proper breeding programs (again with militaries, I think it is the central american subspecies as opposed to the bolivian which is no where near as endangered). Problems - you bet. Pet trade will probably continue as before (although I'm not clear on the phasing out details). Aviculturalists may not really avail themselves of the opportunity presented (for example, I personally would like to get a hold of a couple pairs of genetically different Peach-Front conures, but, like many breeders, I *hate* dealing with importers). Stewart -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: stewartw%cognos.uucp@ccs.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario The bird of the day is .... Green-Cheeked Conure CANADA K1G 3Z4
stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (06/12/91)
In article <2853F31E.2CEA@intercon.com> kdb@intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) writes: >However, I also believe that small numbers of birds need to be imported to help >keep the genetic pool diversified, and help to establish captive breeding I agree ... the proposals seem to allow for this, but I'm dubious about the ability of 'small' breeders (like myself) to become involved in this (outside of a consortium). As an example, almost every Princess of Wales parakeet I've seen has fragile health caused by inbreeding - we could use genetic diversity, but of course it can not be had (although I fully respect Australia's right to make that decision and I am in no way suggesting that I disagree with their tough stance). >programs, not just for the pet trade. I also believe that what the US and >other countries ought to do is establish accredidation for "certified breeders" I'm curious about the kind of standards you would use to establish AND MAINTAIN the accredation. I simply doubt the ability of our government (Canada) at least to be able to do this. These programs cost money and I wonder how well they would work. (This topic is worth a discussion on its own, but I think we best put 'INDOOR' in front of it) >(hey I don't even think that ALL ZOO's should be allowed into this program) I agree ... not all zoos have the expertise to do this work. >This would allow new breeding stock to be brought into countries, and keep it >humane. On the other end, capture stations should sex birds and test for >overall health and fertility. Costs money to set this kind of thing up and requires a level of sophisticated equipment not really available in many of the originating countries. >Sorry for the terseness of this note, but that's my idea in a nutshell. I >believe that this would work, even for countries who now allow NO exportation. The catch is that the process has to be carefully controlled - single departure point - single arrival point; or we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. This means that the commercial profits end up in a small number of hands. While I don't mind seeing one responsible importer be the beneficiary, I imagine infighting within the 'industry' would stop it from ever happening (hope I'm wrong.) >This would keep the population in the wild, and help establish a captive >population which could be tapped at some point to reestablish wild populations >if we as a species every figures out that we don't need to rape every acre of >land on this world. Re-releasing and re-establishing wild populations is very difficult. (I wrote a long paragraph on this about a month ago). It's certainly a worthy goal, but we don't yet know whether or not it can be achieved. >Oh, any "profits" from the sales of breeders could be >directly funnelled back to the exporting country earmarked for use in helping >study, manage, and preserve the wild flocks. It could be, although, I'm not sure what benevolent North American company would do this (what cynicism). If you looked at what amount of profits pet stores, importers, etc., divert to proven wildlife projects, I'm sure you'd discover that it's quite small ... not a lot of longterm thinking going on by these folks yet. Stewart -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: stewartw%cognos.uucp@ccs.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario The bird of the day is .... Green-Cheeked Conure CANADA K1G 3Z4