149 



bird dealers readily acknowledge that captive-bred birds are more tame and healthy 

 than wild-caught birds and therefore make better pets. Wild-caught birds, however, . 

 generally cost less because captive breeding is an expensive and labor-intensive 

 process. By preventing the Importation of wild-caught birds, the WBCA uses market 

 forces to shift consumer demand to professional breeders. New York's 1984 law 

 banning the sale of wild birds produced similar results: with the cheaper wild birds 

 removed from the market, the state's bird breeders thrived [7], 



While a few spokesmen for the bird-breeding industry have expressed 

 continued opposition to the WBCA, our experience shows that their rhetoric is not 

 matched by individual bird breeders and pet store owners. There is a wide variety 

 and diversity of opinion within the aviculture community about the merits of the Act. 

 Although many of the aviculturists we contacted admitted confusion and 

 misunderstandings about the Act's provisions, almost all expressed strong support 

 for the Act. Specifically, numerous individuals indicated that there was little reason to 

 continue to import birds for the commercial pet market, as the number of birds 

 already in the United States is sufficient to meet demand. In fact, for a number of 

 endangered parrot species, more birds exist in captivity in the United States than 

 remain in the wild. 



Risks of Weakening the Wild Bird Conservation Act 



Some opponents of the Act have called for significant changes, including a 

 categorical exemption for all captive-bred birds and an elimination of the Act's 

 marking provisions. While these changes are generally couched in terms of reducing 

 the regulatory burden upon law-abiding aviculturists, we believe that any reduction in 

 these essential provisions would be tantamount to a repeal of the Act. A blanket 

 exemption for captive-bred birds would essentially render the Act meaningless 

 because of the difficulties of distinguishing individual birds taken from the wild or 

 bred in captivity. 



Currently, the Act places reasonable limits on captive-bred birds, allowing 

 importation for approved cooperative breeding programs in addition to certain 

 species (identified on the agency's "clean list" for which international trade has been 

 determined to be entirely captive bred). In addition, the Act has no significant 

 restrictions on the imports of birds not listed under CITES, whether captive-bred or 

 not. 



Similarly, it is essential that the agency administering the Act retain the current, 

 very limited authority to require marking of certain types of birds. This authority has 

 never been invoked and is not likely to be activated anytime soon [8] . Accordingly, 

 the mere possibility of FWS invoking this tool — if needed to address the most 

 serious smuggling problems — should not be a serious point of contention during 



