132 



Congress is requested to clarify this problem either by direction to the 

 Secretary to take appropriate action to delete the word "illegal" from the Regvilations 

 under the WBCA or by Congress inserting in (b)(1) of 106 of the WBCA the word 

 "legal" before the word "trade". 



8. Amend Section 114(c) by deleting the same. 



As directed under Section 114(c), USFWS held an open meeting in 

 Washington on April 7, 1995. It is aviculture's understanding that the USFWS has 

 reported, or will soon report to Congress that government controlled marking 

 programs and facility certification are not necessary. Aviculture strongly objected to 

 these provisions in 1992 and their adoption in the WBCA has served as a source of 

 stress and concern to aviculture since that time. Aviculture is relieved to hear of 

 USFWS findings because aviculture has always believed these sections were 

 impediments to a viable WBCA and to a good working relationship between the 

 avicultural commimity and the USFWS. Aviculture is appreciative of the USFWS' 

 direction in this area. 



9. Delete Section 115 in its entirety. 



Based on the above, we assume that the Secretary has determined that it will 

 not be either helpful or of any productive purpose to require marking and 

 recordkeeping of exotic birds already in captivity in the United States. In fact, this 

 provision is unworkable and would deter captive breeding which is specifically 

 prohibited in Section 115(b) in any event. Not only would this provision deter 

 aviculture, but, if pursued, would involve the expense of millions of tax dollars for 

 no productive purpose and bring urmecessary enforcement scrutiny to U.S. captive 

 breeding efforts. The purpose of the WBCA was to coriserve birds in the wild, not 

 control breeding in the private sector. 



10. Add a new section to the WBCA providing that exotic birds hatched from 

 parental breeding stock in the United States shall be deemed legal notwithstanding 

 any other law, regulation or policy to the contrary. 



It is currently the policy of the USFWS that any exotic bird hatched in this 

 covmtry that represent progeny of illegally-imported parental stock, no matter how 

 many generations ago, is in and of itself illegal and subject to seizure and 

 confiscation proceedings. In other words, all domestically-hatched offspring of any 

 illegally imported birds are also illegal. Under this policy, if parental stock were 

 illegally imported and the offspring were a product of five generations of captive 

 breeding in the United States or elsewhere, all of those captive-bred generations 

 would be considered illegal by the USFWS. Thus, aviculturists attempting to buy 

 even U.S. captive-bred birds still must be concerned that if originally imported 

 parental stock of any prior generation were illegal, their domestically-bred birds 

 could be subject to seizure and confiscation. Congress should effectively create a 

 new section by amendment to the WBCA declaring that all birds documented as 

 hatched of parental stock in the United States are legal notwithstanding the 



