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 f)opulations 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 wild- 

 caught 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 accon^lished 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: (1) 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 requirments. 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. 

 Birds 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: (1) 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. 



