115 



the funds necessary to gather all of the data that FWS would require in the proposed 

 regulations. 



To qualify the plan, the foreign country would also have to provide a description 

 (including photographs or diagrams) of the "shipping methods and enclosures ... including 

 but not limited to feeding and care during transport, densities of birds in shipping 

 enclosures, and estimated consignment sizes." Interestingly, current CITES resolutions, 

 as well as the Lacey Act regulations (50 C.F.R. Sec. 14. 101 et. seq.) require that all 

 imports comply with those import shipping standards, including the International Air 

 Transport Association's Live Animals Regulations . lATA approval would also be 

 conditioned upon satisfying the FWS that the "methods of capture, transport, and 

 maintenance of the species minimize the risk of injury, damage to health, or inhumane 

 treatment." 



Meeting these conditions may be practically insurmountable since experience has 

 demonstrated that certain FWS staff members may not believe that such compliance can 

 be achieved under any circumstances; therefore, no plans will be approved. Indeed, some 

 in FWS advocate consignment size limits that make it totally uneconomic to trade (no 

 more than 250 psittacines/500 non-psittacines per shipment or 10 crates per shipment, 

 whichever is smaller). Since the proposal provides no minimum standards or guidance, 

 any standard proposed by an exporting country will be unfairly measured against the 

 reviewer's subjective, not necessarily objective, perception of what is appropriate. 



The proposal would also require consideration of the effect trade might have on 

 bird populations in countries other than the country of origin as well as the factors 

 occurring in countries not seeking U.S. approval. This approach goes far beyond what is 

 provided for in the WBCA or its legislative history. This would impose an unreasonable 

 and unnecessary burden on an underdeveloped country to gather data and conduct the 

 required impact analysis on other range states when it will experience sufficient difficulties 

 in providing data with respect to its own country. 



The bottom line? Simply that adopting unattainable criteria is nothing more than 

 a smoke screen ~ it is an effective ban, not a conservation management tool. Flexibility is 

 required to assist such underdeveloped countries to develop and implement conservation 

 management programs that achieve the intent of the WBCA. PUAC continues to support 

 the underlining rational on the WBCA but remains opposed to imposition of complex, 

 unattainable criteria on underdeveloped countries or regulatory mechanisms which 

 inherently result in impossible compliance. 



Fundamental to the development of such rational and realizable conservation 

 management plans is flexibility, cooperation, reasonableness, and consultation. 

 Unfortunately, the WBCA is void of any reference mandating "consultation." 

 Furthermore, bilateral, not unilateral, consultation and cooperation is essential for the 

 WBCA to meet the Congressional intent. Absent inclusion of such language in the 

 WBCA, it will not occur as a matter of course. PUAC recommends that the WBCA be 



