131 



(ii) Require that birds to which an affidavit pertains be marked with a 

 simple marking system for identification. 



(iii) Require a certificate by a licensed veterinarian that the facility contains 

 an adequate number of pairs to supply birds in the numbers to be exported and is 

 operated humanely. 



(iv) Require local CITES management authority certification that the 

 operation of that facility does not deplete birds in the wild. 



(v) Provide the USFWS with a quota option on a facility-by-facility basis to 

 be used to guard against laundering. 



(vi) Provide that ovymers of a facility proved to be laundering birds to the 

 United States shall forever lose their right to export birds to the United States. 



7. Amend Section 106(b)(1), "List of Approved Species", to clarify that 

 Congress did not intend for species regularly bred in captivity and for which no 

 wild-caught birds of the species are in "trade", did not mean that if any of a regularly 

 captive-bred species are in illegal trade, the species would not then qualify as 

 regularly bred in captivity. 



The USFWS, in promulgating its Regulations, added the words "legal or 

 illegal" to modify the word "trade" when determining whether or not species 

 regularly bred in captivity and of which no wild-caught birds were in "trade" would 

 qualify under the List of Approved Species. It is both unreasonable and an 

 inappropriate conservation measure to add the words "illegal or legal" when 

 describing trade in determining whether birds regularly bred in captivity would 

 quaUfy as approved species. The fact that some number of birds of a given species 

 may be in illegal trade should not preven, birds regularly bred in captivity and for 

 which wild-caught individuals are not generally in the pet trade from being 

 approved species imder Section 106(b)(1). In fact, withholding from the Approved 

 Species List species regularly bred in captivity merely because some of those species 

 may be in illegal trade will actually serve as an incentive for continued smuggling. 

 If birds regularly bred in captivity are on the Approved List, then they will be readily 

 available to the trade and the smuggled bird will not be at a premium. In fact, in the 

 Report, on Page 17, Congress stated, in reflecting on the Approved Species List of the 

 New York State Wild Bird Law that "...certain species are exempted from the 

 banding requirement because virtually all of the specimens of those species in trade 

 have been captive-bred" [emphasis added]. It is clear that Congress intended the 

 Secretary to use the criteria used for the New York State Law which makes no 

 distinction for birds regularly bred in captivity not qualifying because some were or 

 might be in illegal trade. In the Report, Page 17, Congress stated that the Secretary 

 should "...include such species on the Approved List under this Section as long as 

 the Secretary believes that trade based on these standards would not result in harm 

 to species in the wild." As previously stated, to keep species regularly bred in 

 captivity off the Approved List because some of those species may be in illegal trade 

 will actually serve to encourage illegal trade and perpetuate harm to those species in 

 the wild. 



