129 



will also remove the incentive for cooperative breeding programs, which is to have 

 as many participants working with and producing as many captive-bred offspring 

 from cooperative breeding program imported birds as possible. The USFWS has 

 already seen this deterrence of captive breeding under the CBW (Captive Bred 

 Wildlife) Program under the Endangered Species Act. This program requires 

 tracking of captive-bred endangered species and has deterred broad participation and 

 is actually shutting down breeding progran\s for endangered species due to the 

 limited numbers of aviculturists willing to register with the government. The 

 WBCA itself under Section 112(4)(A) only required the promotion of conservation 

 of the species by enhancing the propagation and survival of the species. It was the 

 Report which contemplated the tracking of progeny for future release programs. At 

 this time it is more important to encourage propagation of these species than it is to 

 track the whereabouts of offspring for release programs which may be decades away. 

 If these programs are successful, the whereabouts of captive-bred cooperative 

 breeding program species will be well known in aviculture and the deregulation of 

 progeny will actually serve as a greater incentive for wider participation by 

 aviculturists in promoting captive breeding of cooperative breeding program 

 progeny. 



Trade in Captive-Bred Birds 



Captive breeding of exotic birds was already dramatically increasing between 

 1985 and 1992, prior to the WBCA, due to advancements in and education by the 

 groups joining in this testimony about exotic avian science, veterinary techniques, 

 diet and husbandry and increased interest and participation in aviculture. Captive- 

 bred birds were and continue to be naturally replacing wild-caught birds for the pet 

 trade. The WBCA has had little to do with the increase in breeding of exotic avian 

 species. On the other hand, the inability of aviculture to import even captive-bred 

 exotic birds since adoption of the WBCA is already having a detrimental effect on 

 avicultural activities. While avicultiire has the ability to fill a great deal of the void 

 created by the WBCA in the pet trade supply, it must be given the tools to continue 

 to do so. Foreign breeders of exotic birds have different gene pools and species 

 needed by U.S. aviculture. Shipping mortality of captive-bred birds is far below the 

 14% level reported for wild-caught exotic birds. The prohibitive WBCA regulatory 

 structure, especially with respect to the ability of aviculturists to import captive-bred 

 exotic birds, is deterring avicultural pursuits both in supplying the pet trade and in 

 creating self-sustaining populations of exotic birds for preservation of rare and 

 endangered species. This was not the intent of the WBCA. 



Aviculture is gravely concerned that without swift and decisive action by 

 Congress, the WBCA will continue to fail aviculture in the U.S. and abroad as it 

 relates to trade in captive-bred birds. For aviculture, this is the most important part 

 of the current oversight and reauthorization process. The WBCA must 

 acknowledge the legitimacy of aviculture if captive-bred birds are to replace wild- 

 caught birds in trade. Aviculture respectfully requests that Congress amend the 

 WBCA and give direction to the USFWS as summarized below. 



