Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!indri!ames!apple!chuq
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: Wild caught v. domestic (was Birdwatchers vs. bird owners)
Message-ID: <33607@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 89 22:04:28 GMT
References: <3012@nmtsun.nmt.edu> <1316@intercon.UUCP>
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Lines: 56

>> Finally, I'd like to throw one entirely gratuitous flame in
>> the direction of the bird owners.  Please try to avoid
>> buying birds that were taken from the wild.  There are many
>> species being bred in captivity, so whether you like them
>> small or large, quiet or vocal, you have many choices that
>> don't diminish dwindling wild populations.  I commend the
>> efforts of breeders to establish self-sustaining captive
>> populations.

It's not at all gratuitous. Purchasing a wild-caught *pet* of an endangered
species is a stupid thing to do. It takes one more bird out of the gene
pool. Building a captive bred population is another matter, but that needs
to be carefully coordinated so that the capture and transportation is humane
and so the population is mixed enough that the gene pool doesn't stagnate.

It's a complex subject, though. Domestic bred birds are more expensive, for
one thing. This puts pressure on the wild-caught market to take up the
slack. If the wild-caught market were outlawed tomorrow, it wouldn't do much
good except encourage the smugglers, which increases the kill ratio during
capture and transport and puts the birds through even *more* hell -- and
introduces sick birds into the local population. You won't do away with
wild-caught birds, you'll just send it underground. Everyone loses, and the
predation will tend towards birds that can be easily smuggled for higher
prices (military macaws, for one) -- that implies endangered species.

A possible answer, in my eyes, is to encourage both improvements in capacity
of domestic birds *and* setting things up so that non-endangered birds are
available to take up the demand. If Australia would remove the export ban on
avians, much of the wild-caught demand could be taken up by Rose-Breasted
Cockatoos that are currently being slaughted in the millions each year as
pests. We could (somewhat) reduce the cockatoo infestation down there,
giving some of those birds a second chance *and* encourage people away from
buying endangered species. A program could also be set up at the same time
to guarantee the humane treatment of those birds as part of the
import/export regulations.

>It was generally my opinion
>that catching birds from the wild for export was a bad thing.  But after
>speaking with some owners of quarantine stations, they justify it by saying
>that the birds that are now coming in are in such sorry shape due to habitat
>destruction and lack of adequate nutrition, that the birds will soon die
>in the wild if they are not taken for pets.

This is partly rationalization, but it also has a point. If we do nothing,
many of these birds will die anyway. If they're endangered, it's better to
have them in a captive-bred program than not at all. That doesn't mean
importing them for pets, though. 

The *real* answer here, though, is figuring out how to stop the habitat
destruction. Sigh...


Chuq Von Rospach      =|=     Editor,OtherRealms     =|=     Member SFWA/ASFA
         chuq@apple.com   =|=  CI$: 73317,635  =|=  AppleLink: CHUQ
      [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]