Abstract
Dear Editor:
Part I
As the official researcher to PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council), I must disagree with the stand taken by Jerry Jennings in the April/May issue of the Watchbird regarding the Injurious Species Proposal.
It is my opinion that all birds have avicultural significance, even if we don't currently have them in captivity. Not long ago, no one would have thought much of breeding birds of prey, yet today the breeding of these birds is considered a major avicultural achievement.
Most of the birds on the USDI list have been condemned merely because they belong to a certain genus. Many of them are island species that have restricted ranges and limited potential for continental "establishment". Others are rare and little known. Of all of the birds on the list, only three have been definitely proven to be injurious in some part of the world. Coupled with about five "possibles" the number of birds (74 species total) condemned out of hand is unwarranted and unfounded.
Despite its being a Mynah, Rothschild's Mynah is not on the list. It is, however, on the Endangered Species list.
To allow the USDI to declare even one species as injurious without proof is not realistic. This is not the market place where one gives a little with the clear indication that concessions will be made by the other side. The USDI has no intention of conceding anything that it is not forced to concede. The track record is clear.
At the ad hoc committee meetings with the USDI and PIJAC (and other interested parties), the USDI assumed that they would tell us what was what, and that we would have to take it, until we took a hard stand and declared our intention to litigate. They were suddenly reasonable. At a subsequent meeting before Congressman Leggett, where PIJAC took a determined position, the USDI lost its bid to promulgate the proposal and soon "let it be known" that it was time for us to sit down and reason together. During the latest outbreak of Newcastle, PIJAC fumbled the ball by assuming a "cooperative" position. They were stomped. The A.F.A' took the USDA to task and forced it to side step us by disbanding the task force one working day prior to our court appearance. Agriculture, like Interior, is now interested in meeting with representatives of the A.F .A. so that we can work something out together.
Both the scientific evidence and the evidence of the record support the need for a hard, determined stand when dealing with the government. To concede without negotiation is to give everything away.
Part II
Mr. Bucci, in his article in the February/March 1977 "Watchbird" stated, "Genetically, the dominant white is characterized as lethal-dominant". True. He further states, "This characteristic is the very same as found in the crested canary and deep yellow (intensive-hard feather). False.
1. Cresting is a genetic malformation.
Single cresting ( crest x plain head) is usually harmless. Double cresting ( crest x crest) causes 1 /4 of the offspring to have heads where the sutures of the skull fail to close properly, leaving the brain protected by the skin layers only. Such birds appear normal but are easily injured. Even slight accidents can cause them to fly funny or even die. Barring such accidents, they are perfectly capable of living normal lives.
2. Hard feathered birds have short feathers. Hard x hard matings, when done consistently, give progressively shorter and more brittle feathers. After a few generations of this, the birds may die because they are naked and lack insulation, but this is progressive and not a "genetically lethal factor".
Neither of the above matings leads to the automatic death of the bird at a predeterminable stage of his development. Ergo, neither is genetically lethal.
Joseph G. Griffith Costa Mesa, CA.