91 



populations. In such cases, captive breeding can provide a short-tcnn reprieve, buying time for 

 preparation of reintroduction sites that may pennit leestablishment of wild populations. 



Limitations of Captive Breeding 



The potentials of cq>tive breeding for species recovery are limited by a number of 

 important considerations: 



(1) Difficulties in breeding certain species. Most psittacines have been bred in 

 captivity, but sustained and quantitatively adequate captive production has remained an elusive 

 goal for many species (sec Oubb 1992). For others, satisfactory production has been attained 

 only by hand-rearing. Unfortunately, hand-reared birds can generally be expected to be of lesser 

 value than parent-reared birds for reintroduction purposes, and in some cases, they may be 

 impossible to reestablish in true wild environments. 



(2) Difficulties in reintroducing manv species to the wild . Reintroduction programs for 

 vertebrates to date have been relatively unsuccessful when limited to captive-bred stock — 

 averaging 11 - 38% successful in recent major surveys by Beck et al. (1994) and Griffith et 

 al. (1989). Reintroductions of captive-bred parrots 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 fostering to wild pairs or are released in 

 predator-free or predator-deficient environments, many reintroductions may fail because of 

 inadequate flocking behavior and poor habitat recognition abilities (see Snyder et al. 1994). The 

 bottleneck in using captive breeding successfully in species recovery often lies in problems in 

 reintroduction rather than in captive breeding itself. 



(3) High costs in facilities and personnel The costs of properly-run captive- breeding 

 programs, including isolated. wcU-sited facilities, comprehensive disease control, and the 

 manpower needed to maintain and care for the captive populations are substantial, sometimes 

 running on the order of a half million dollars per year. Over the time needed for conservation 

 programs, such costs can sometimes fat exceed those of other potential conservation methods. 

 Techniques such as habitat preservation (which automatically benefits far more species than the 

 single parrot species under consideration) are often far more economical. On the basis of costs 

 vs. benefits, captive-breeding is commonly an undesirable option. 



(4) Disease risks. Parrots are susceptible to over 30 known pathogens and disease 

 syndromes, many of which are widespread in captive collections and some of which caimot be 

 reliably detected in carrier birds by presently available tests or standard quarantine procedures. 

 Of course, diseases also occur in wild populations. However, wild populations are relatively well 

 adapted to deal with indigenous diseases through natural immunities, and the greatest risks occur 

 when species are exposed to novel, exotic diseases. Such exposure risks are especially great 

 whenever birds are transported or held in large numbers in multispecies environments. Unless 

 captive breeding is conducted under carefully controlled conditions, the risks of disease to 

 captive, reintroduced, and wild populations are substantial. Ideally, to minimize these risks, 

 captive breeding of endangered parrots for recovery purposes should occur in: 



a) closed, single-species facilities. 



b) facilities within the natural range of the species. 



c) facilities in which staff do not have contact with other species of wildlife, either 

 professionally or avocationally. 



d) facilities that are sited as much as possible in areas free from arthropod disease veaors 



