Breeding and Captive Management of the Red & Blue Lory

Abstract

There has been much interest generated recently, about the Red & Blue Lory, Eos histrio, by both aviculturists and conservationists alike, as for the very first time, a commercial shipment of these lories occurred in 1992, with a significant number of birds destined for Singapore.

Conservationists were gravely concerned about this exploitation by the live-bird trade which may endanger the survival of wild populations of this Jory. And even before any great extent of trade occurring, funds had been raised by the International Loriidae Society, sponsoring an East Anglian University expedition to study and assess the population dynamics of this Jory in its native habitat. (Low, 1992)

Previously, Red & Blue Lories occurred extremely rarely in trade, with a personal estimate of about five birds appearing in imports annually, in consignments of Red Lories Eos bornea. This was because the traders at Manado, a town at the Northernmost tip of Sulawesi, had not been active and any birds traded were taken as pets, presumably owned by local natives of Kepulauhan Sanghir - Talaud, who occasionally brought these to Manado, as items of trade. No deliberate move was made to obtain these birds in any numbers. However, in 1992, this situation changed and local traders found an incentive to obtain this previously unassuming local pet as a commodity, which represented a significant value in itself. And this was all the motivation that they needed to generate a supply for the demand caused by the export market.

Further information about this Jory can be obtained from an article, published in the TRAFFIC Bulletin Vol. 13 No. 3 0993). I found this to be a reasonably fair and, more importantly, unbiased account for trade and assessment of status for this Jory. Such articles by conservationists ought to be applauded, as more often than not, papers presented by conservationist and projectionist groups are exaggerated, especially when indicating the levels of exploitation and trade.

However, a call for a full review of the species' current CITES listing by the same author, would be more harmful in my opinion, as it basically calls for this species to be placed in Appendix I of CITES and subjecting more restrictive movements as defined under Article III of the Convention. This calls for assessment by the so called Berne-Criteria, in accordance with Resolution Conf. 1.1 of CITES. [The species has been, in fact, placed on Appendix I. Ed.]

Notable examples are of Goffin's Cockatoo Cacatua goffini and the Bluestreaked Lory Eos reticulatus both endemic to the Kai and Tenimbar Islands, which were more recently placed in Appendix I. Personal observations have revealed that serious aviculturists have abandoned the breeding of these birds, and some even disposed of their stock. The obvious reasons were because of the more restrictive measures caused by this listing and the very virtue of these birds being inexpensive and common, thus it was not worth the trouble to wrestle in abounding legislation and red-tape just to keep or breed it. Listing in Appendix I, in which interpretation being carried out intelligently, contributed to the conservation and preservation of wild populations; but interpreted by overprotectionist authorities to constitute a reason sufficient to them, to put up unjustified and complete barriers to movements of stock already in captivity or bred in captivity, but not given exemptions under Article VII, Paragraph 4 and 5, both of these exemptions requiring separate treatments and approach. In extreme cases, all movements of Appendix I species is prohibited, in obvious detriment to the continued survival of the species in captivity which constitutes a valuable genetic source; in which excess captive bred young cannot be disposed and unpaired birds are unable to be paired with suitable mates to become active breeders.

In a celebrated case in point, a famous European park and breeding center for many species of rare parrots and other birds, was told by the local CITES Management Authority to split up their breeding pairs of Appendix I species, so as not to create surplus stock, in the view of mounting protests because of the refusal of permission to dispose and export excess captive bred young from their stock to other breeders. (Low, pers. comm.)

This is definitely against the very principle and spirit of CITES and of aviculture. As one of the aims of CITES is to gradually restrict and regulate trade to those species which may be successfully managed and bred in captivity. And very sadly, this continues to be the practice of many bureaucrats within authority, much to the frustration of many dedicated and serious aviculturists. Even when the...