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 regulations. 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 are being used to ensure the ultimate destruction of 

 American aviculture. 



It is important to note that, originally, 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 United States every year. 



Furthermore, as participants in the compromise process which resulted in the Wild Bird 

 Conservation 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 back 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 are 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 American 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.'" In New Jersey, 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 findings demonstrate that the WBCA is not having 

 detrimental impact on United States aviculture or the American pet trade, but rather a positive 

 one. 



'" Connor, Bob. Testimony on the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 before House Subcommittees on 

 Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment and Trade. 16 June 1992. 



" Herrighty, Lawrence, letter to Susan Russell, 16 August 1995. 



7 



