29 



the Service are burdensome, restrictive and unattainable. As' a de- 

 partment in the largest government or business in the world, the 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should act as a service to those af- 

 fected. This is not the perception that is prevalent in the public sec- 

 tor. 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 Serv- 

 ice. 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 busi- 

 nesses. No amount of regulation will prevent the determined crimi- 

 nal 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 over- 

 zealous. 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 per- 

 sons making previous applications, WBCA applications, CITES or 

 otherwise. Ask them about their experiences with the Service. Per- 

 haps 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 im- 

 possible. 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 genu- 

 inely 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 ap- 

 proved. Are people afraid to apply? 



20-880 95-2 



