Abstract
What is conservation? Webster W defines the word as "the act of keeping from depletion." How does this relate to breeding birds in captivity? If you ask this question of an aviculturist they will say they are breeding birds so they will exist when the habitat has been totally destroyed and no more specimens exist in the wild. That certainly qualifies as "the act of keeping from depletion." If you ask a conservationist how aviculture is related to conservation they will usually tell you there is little correlation between the two. So who is the most correct? Are we, as aviculturists, wasting our time or are we actually
doing some good for the future of certain bird species?
A controversy has arisen between aviculrure and "in the wild" conservation. Suddenly there seems to be competition between the captive breeders and the field biologists who both seek the same goal, to save birds in the wild. This competition is not helping the birds but, instead, hampering captive breeding efforts for many rare and endangered birds. Birds that are in need of assistance if they are to survive in their natural habitat for years to come.
The relationship between captive breeding and conservation in the wild
is very difficult to define. Perhaps there is no relationship between the two. Perhaps we must all adjust our thoughts to accept the fact that, in these changing times, there are two distinctly different sectors of conservation, captive breeding and conservation in the wild. Unfortunately, most of the regulations that have been promulgated by our government are geared towards the benefit of the species in the wild. This eliminates the participation efforts of captive breeding in any given conservation program that is funded by the government. It also gives the field biologist the upper hand when seeking justification for a new "program" to be funded by the government.
The above scenario is a sad one indeed. It does not consider the one fact that has led to the demise of most species in the first place, habitat destruction. Although collection for the pet trade and breeder trade is blamed for the disappearance of many species in the wild, man's interference in the habitat is really the cause of it all. So we are funding more interference, ignoring captive conservation, and continuing to cut the habitat on a daily basis. In the mean time, "save the world biologists" are out there hanging unnatural nests, counting birds, shooting birds, and writing their doctoral dissertations on the possible extinction of yet another species of bird. Then there are a few who are participating in release programs that boggle the mind with justified, governmentally funded, stupidity.
On one isolated island we have a biologist who needs to get a doctorate degree. What does she do to get it except sit in the wild and observe a very rare species of Amazon parrot attempt to nest in a new habitat filled with feral cats. Did she ever stop and consider that perhaps the decline of this bird was due to exactly that which they are observing. Common house cats that have gone wild are destroying the nests, and in some cases, even the laying hen in the nest. Did this field biologist do anything to help the birds or did she only study the nests, write a dissertation and collect her new degree and move on to a new job? As an aviculturist, the first thing that I would have done is have the cats
destroyed! The only way for this species to recover is to restore the habitat to what it was and make it safe for the birds to nest successfully.
Interestingly enough, this biologist is very anti-captive breeding. She feels that the demise of most of these rare birds was due to collection for the trade. However, in all my world travels and all the aviaries, public and private, that I have visited, there are NO representatives of this species in captivity. Whoops there goes another one of those ...
Right about the same time, there was another governmentally funded biologist trying to re-establish a parrot species in an area where it has not been seen since the 1930's. This habitat is hostile and full of predators. Could this have been the reason that the birds disappeared from here in the first place? I guess not. The biologist continued to release birds into this area only to find them killed or missing completely. Surely there must have been another reason these birds have moved out of this area.
This same species has another range. A range where it is quite common and not in a highly threatened position, unless of course someone decides they need the lumber. Why not release birds into this area where they already exist in adequate numbers and the newly released can learn from the birds that are already there. Of course this would not be such an exciting project and may not receive as much press and prestige as starting an entirely new group in an uninhabited area. Instead, the final published result of the project is summarized as "reintroduction of birds is not feasible, captive bred birds are not suitable for release." Strike another blow against aviculture.
If you really want to see conservation at work, take a good look at the government project on one of the northern Caribbean Islands. In the early 1980's there were an estimated 50 representatives in the wild. Everyone jumped through the hoop to help save the bird. Of course none were taken off the island and placed with captive breeders who could have done some good with them.