Abstract
Dear Editor:
l have watched and read the letters and articles which you have published during the last few months regarding the New York Bird Ban as it is called. I am pleased to see the interchange of ideas and gratified to hear from people like Ken Graham and Connie Stone of Phoenix, Arizona (APA Watchbircl XII, 4, 1985) as well as Dr. Dominique G. Hornberger and Ronald Brodell (APA Watchbircl XII, 6, 1985).
Let me begin by explaining how I became embroiled in the new York law. In August, 1984 when the law suddenly appeared and was passed by the State Legislature, the New York Zoological Society (for whom I work as Curator of Birds) went on record in opposition to the law and asked the Governor to veto it since we did not feel it had been carefully reviewed or considered or was enforceable as it sood at that time. The law was signed and turned over to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) for the development of regulations to implement the law.
We at the New York Zoological Society asked if we and other interested and affected parties could have input into regulations as they were being drawn up. The DEC set up a special advisory committee which met monthly to help advise on the regulations. l attended all of the meetings between November, 1984 and June, 1985. I firmly believe that great progress was made during that time and that, although not perfect in every detail, the regulations implementing the new law are not only fair but hold the potential for helping protect the world's birdlife. I believe that the regulations recognize zoos and aviculturists within reason (based on the original intent of the bill to ban all importation of birds) even try to encourage the aviculturist. The New York regulations allow aviculturists to continue to import breeding stock and sell and trade this breeding stock with each other. The aviculturist should get additional encouragement, as he will not have to compete with the "cheap imports" when he goes to sell the birds he has worked hard to rear.
Here is where I believe Dr. Homberger 's example of the Australian parrots is very appropriate. What happened when Australia put a ban on exports' First, the price rose dramatically, but people who held these birds carefully and diligently bred and managed these species. As a result the price has slowly dropped until now many Australian parrots that are rare or endangered in the wild are readily available at a relatively low price. Now the captive supply and demand determines the price without having a significant impact on any wild population.
I believe this same principle will apply where a ban on wild imports for sale as pets is imposed. Actually I hope it does encourage the large scale breeding which 1 know is possible and is even beginning co occur with a few species in a few places. We still need a lot more breeding facilities for many other groups of birds.
Dr. Hornberger also presents a very strong case for the argument that the New York ban will reduce demand. How could a ban do anything other than reduce demand? Even if there is only one honest law-abiding citizen who decides against buying a bird, it has reduced demand. I believe demand will be reduced but supply will be short so prices will rise, further lowering demand for the now more expensive birds. This will continue until a few wise breeders get their acts together and start breeding the now more valuable birds. Then, like the Australian parrots, prices will go down as the supply of captive bred birds increases. There will be some time of fluctuation back and forth, but eventually a balance should develop between captive bred birds and the demand for them, as has occurred with many of the Australian parrots.
Importers have argued that the New York law would encourage smuggling. While the initial price increase might encourage some smuggling I believe that this will not be significant as there are currently significant differences in retail prices depending on which section of the country you live in. More importantly, for the first time state authorities will have some jurisdiction over smuggled birds. Under the new law any birds without bands or documents to prove their captive bred status, including smuggled birds, can be seized by the state. If enforced, this would allow the state to actually assist in stopping bird smuggling.
Dr. Hornberger also correctly points out that without any question habitat destruction is the major cause of decline in most species. However, the capture for the pet trade is yet another drain on any population. Regardless of how many are shot by farmers or poisoned or collected for feathers the fact remains that collection for pets is another drain on the population. In many cases the techniques used and lack of concern for the individual birds is utterly appalling.
I believe the bottom line for anyone who really cares about the world's birds hits home when one looks at the official USDI and USDA importation figures for the United States. In 1984 over 900,000 birds were imported to the U.S. Over 44,000 were dead on arrival, over 112,000 died in quarantine and over 14,000 were refused entry to the U.S. A total of 19% (or over 171,000) didn't make it. Unfortunately that isn't even the majority of the losses of birds, as most losses occur in capture and holding in the country of origin. Professional collectors and scientists estimate that, depending on the species involved, somewhere between one and fifty birds die in the process for each bird that reaches the pet store. The total birds removed from the wild is staggering when one considers that in just five years, 1980-1984, the U.S. alone imported nearly four million birds, of which three quarters of a million died or were refused entry. This obviously means that the world's population of birds in the wild was reduced in just five years by over eight million birds minimally to supply the U.S. pet trade. How can anyone say that has no impact on wild populations?
Another question is also of grave concern. How many of last year's 900,000 imports were ever sold? How many are alive today? What about the four million imports in the last five years? I shudder to think of how many birds died in transit, in pet stores and in the hands of inappropriate people.
With these awful figures in mind I realize that someone has to speak up for the birds and I commend Ronald Brodell for doing just that in his letter to the A.F.A. Watchbird in the DecemberJanuary issue when he said "I side with the birds'.'
I firmly believe and urge that aviculturists get on with their work at hand, namely developing the techniques and expertise to breed birds, working together on breeding and conservation programs and, yes, working with conservation organizations to develop ways to help protect the world's birds and their habitats. This can be done in ways that encourage aviculture. But as many are saying now and as I urged all of you at your Washington, D.C. convention in 1982, it is time to get our acts together and fight for the world's birds. We as aviculturists must not let the smuggler or unscrupulous dealer drag us all down, because unless we are careful and act soon that is exactly where we are headed. Ifwe don't act now we are likely to find a rash of more and more restrictive laws and regulations.
I, along with Ronald Brodell, want to "side with the birds'.'
Sincerely,
Donald Bruning, Ph.D., Curator Department of Ornithology New York Zoological Society