Abstract
The committee on Transmissible Diseases of Poultry in assembly at the eighty-fourth annual meeting of the United States Animal Health Association, held in Louisville, Ky., Nov. 2 thru 7, 1980, approved two resolutions that are in the interests of aviculture.
The resolutions passed were modifications of those presented in his subcommitte report by Dr. Richard E. Baer, president of the American Federation of Aviculture and chairman of the committee's Subcommittee on Cage and Aviary Birds. Dr. Baer, a member of the executive board of the Committee on Transmissible Disease of Poultry, is the sole voice of aviculture in that body composed of representatives of the poultry industry, government poultry regulatory personnel and those engaged in poultry research and education.
After much discussion over the semantics of the wording of the first motion presented in the subcommitte report (see the full text of the report accompanying this ankle), Dr. Baer, as subcommittee chairman, accepted and proposed an amended version which was passed unanimously. The revised approved resolution reads as follows: ''It was so moved and accepted that the Committee supports the establishment of the mechanism for a formal dialogue between the poultry and pet bird industries and regulatory and research people on the problem of V.V.N.D. eradication.''
The second resolution passed by the Committee, again after much discussion and with persuasion by the subcommittee chairman, adopted the first pan of the second subcommittee report motion, namely: "That the Committee favors the encouragement by government of the domestic captive propagation of cage and aviary birds." The last portion of the report's proposed second motion, "that, if possible, this (pet bird) industry be recognized by government as an agricultural industry"; died without vote as no second to that pan of the motion could be obtained.
It must be remembered that aviculture has only one representative on this committee of twenty-seven members. In view of such odds, the passage of the two resolutions represents a definite achievement for aviculture, The problems and goals set forth in the full subcommittee report, however, should still be the concern and objective of all aviculturists. Such concern must be expressed at every opportunity, in letters both to the government agencies involved and in written petitions to your government representatives. The report should be duplicated and sent to your congressman along with your petition and it should be used as a basis for information when making written protest to the Dept. of Agriculture.
Another recommendation was presented to the full committee which had it passed would have had the United States Animal Health Association favoring a policy which could prove detrimental not only to aviculture, but also to the poultry industry. The resolution read: "The United States Animal Health Association, RECOMMENDS, that Veterinary Services, USDA, classify all premises where a Newcastle disease virus has been isolated and biologically typed as nonviscerotropic, but velogenic, be handled as VVND positive, and, FURTHER RECOMMENDS, that research funds be made available for identification of exotic strains of Newcastle disease virus, other than by present biological procedures."
If such an irrational regulation were ever to be put into effect it would open a "Pandora's box" of disasterous consequences for the aviculturist and poultryman both. One of the premises put forth in proposing this resolution was "that such strains have not been recovered recently in domestic poultry'', implying that velogenci Newcastle disease is not endemic in this country. this is patently false. In the discussion that followed the presentation of the motion, it was brought to the attention of the committee that indemnities could not be paid on birds destroyed because of infection with an endemic disease unless a full scale eradication program were inaugerated against that disease; and, that such an eradication program could not be applied discrirninately only against birds, but must include poultry as well. Dr. Baer pointed out that such a change in policy could result in the extermination of thousands upon thousands more birds with the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars. He questioned where all of this money would be coming from. He further predicted that such a move would destroy all of the cooperation and trust given by the aviculturists to Veterinary Services and would, beyond any doubt, result in serious law suits against government.
The motion was defeated by a vote of 11 to 6, with the six "yea" votes coming mostly from regulatory personnel on the committee. The propriety that these officials who have a vested interest in the passage of such a motion should even vote is questionable. The suspciion is that it is probably these same persons who orchestrated the whole manuever in the first place; especially, when it is now known that a similar proposal was placed in the Federal Registry on Oct. 9, 1980, with little or no publicity to those most concerned, and with the requirement that all responses be made by Dec. 8, 1980.
It is the responsibility of all aviculturists to cooperate in active opposition to all...