National Bird Day
By Charlie • January 5, 2009 • 12 commentsAs part of ‘parrot-month’ we’re supporting “National Bird Day” an initiative designed by Born Free USA united with Animal Protection Institute in coordination with the Avian Welfare Coalition to take action by drawing attention to the exploitation of other countries’ native birds by the U.S. pet industry on January 5th — National Bird Day.
The trade in wild birds (of any family or group) is both cruel and inherently wasteful. Large numbers of birds die when they’re caught (in nets, on lime-sticks, or taken from nests as chicks) and then during transport when they’re crammed into boxes without adequate food, water, or space. One moment they’re in a forest or a grassland, the next they’re being forced into totally unnatural situations and being handled by the very humans they’re conditioned to avoid. More birds die in the crowded ‘bird markets’ that trappers bring crates full of birds too where they’re sold on to the dealers who have lucrative contacts with retailers or wholesalers overseas. Many birds also die soon after unsuspecting new owners take home already stressed, exhausted, and dehydrated birds from retailers that don’t always put the interest of the bird before that of turning a profit.
Can you be certain you know where your new pet came from?
There are more than enough breeders in eg both the US and Europe to provide birds for those that want them: there is simply no excuse in the twenty-first century to allow the trade in wild birds caught overseas to continue. The text below comes from the ‘National Bird Day’ website and is used with permission. Please follow the provided links, where you can learn much more about what can - in fact must - be done to halt this unnecessary trade…
“National Bird Day” is not only a good day to take time to appreciate the native wild birds flying free outside our windows, it is also a perfect time to reflect on how we treat the native birds of other countries. While we have enacted laws to protect our native birds — such as blue jays, cardinals, and crows — from commercial exploitation, we fail to recognize the inconsistency in allowing the pet industry to exploit the birds of other countries.
Even when bred in captivity, exotic birds are not considered domesticated animals, and all their inherent behavioral and physical needs remain intact. Sadly, when it comes to birds, deprivation of their natural behaviors (to fly and flock, for example) is an inescapable component of their captivity.
Each year thousands of birds are sold into the pet trade to individuals who are under the mistaken impression that a bird will make a perfect pet. Eventually, whether due to frustration, disinterest, or concern, many people attempt to rid themselves of the responsibility of caring for their birds. Unfortunately, few of these birds will find a loving home, and most will spend their days isolated and confined to their cages. Others will bounce from home to home as their caretakers tire of them, and some may be abandoned at local shelters and birds rescues, set free to fend for themselves or euthanized.
Meanwhile pet stores across the country including Petco and PetsMart continue to treat birds like merchandise peddling them into the pet trade. The in-store care of animals in pet shops is always suspect because store managers are often faced with conflicting responsibilities of caring for animals, even when the animals are sick, and making a store profitable. Since the cost of veterinary care can easily exceed the commercial value of an animal, common sense leads to the conclusion that profits and animal care inherently conflict, especially in a retail environment.
• 
•
But what would be the realistic solution to ugliness of wild bird trade?
For example, I have long wanted to see the Painted Bunting (and the closest I have come to that so far is knowing someone who has seen the female), and I appreciate that they are very precious and that U.S. probably should not be exporting them to aviculturists in Europe. However, Mexico does export them, and I think that CITES has only requested that they review the quota. So Europe will have Painted Buntings in any case, because there is the problem of cooperation in the international community.
Furthermore, if I were living in Europe, knowing that Painted Buntings are on the market, I would surely purchase a pair (or more if I could afford them) after some research on care/breeding and devote to them prime real estate of an aviary. While I do not like the idea of owning wild caught birds, my justification would be that as long as these birds are being imported, then they are better off (so I would hope and try for) under my care than under the care of someone who simply fancies the colors or the song. So then, I would have inadvertently supported the wild bird trade, even if that trade potentially endangers a bird with whom I have been in love since childhood. Boycotting the market would not have helped the Painted Buntings, because such colors will always fetch a price.
Sara - I’ve seen people use that kind of justification in the herp trade as well - they argue for buying wild-caught as well as ‘rescuing’ animals from terrible conditions in bad shops. It just doesn’t work. Justifying your obtaining wild birds because they are already imported anyways is valuing the welfare of individuals over that of species. I’m sure you could provide a fantastic home for the animals you get, but you are still directly financing the trade. Ending the market could only help wild birds - it will cut out the biggest source of legal finance. Of course they will always fetch a price and smuggling will continue, but smuggling doesn’t equal the legal trade. The continued existence of smuggling doesn’t mean we can’t attack large portion of the problem.
I don’t know what the solutions are in this big problem, but if it included an all-out ban on wild-caught birds (herps, anything exotic for that matter), I would probably support it.
Nick, I still agree that it is a big and complicated problem, but I would not support absolute ban on import/export of birds.
Firstly, I think that there has to be some import/export processes as needed for conservation (e.g. zoological institutes) and for research purposes. I met at least one researcher whom I know to have gone to Africa, captured his own Jameson’s Firefinches, and return to the States with his live specimens. Furthermore, he sacrifices his birds for his research. So he is not only permitted to import birds, but he decides for himself whether or not his research results are worth the life of the birds (I am so relieved not to have to make that choice; birds would win anyway!).
But then that begs the question: why should only zoopark curators and avian researchers be allowed to import birds? Who is to say that their interest is more noble than the interest of aviculturists to nurture self-sustaining populations in captivity? Maybe more regulations should be implemented, but in many cases, regulations are not the best answer when both the regulators and the bird trappers have myopic afflictions. And the case of the latter, particularly, justifies my suspicion that total abolition simply will not be realised.
Furthermore, researchers such as Dr. Baptista and Dr. McGraw did/do interface/collaborate with aviculturists. Common but serious hobbyists have a lot to contribute to the study of birds.
In aviculture at least, I think that improving the quality of publications would catalyse more collaboration between avian scientists and bird-keepers. There are plenty of custodians practicing their own brand of pseudoscience (for example . . .), and these characters are detrimental to mutually beneficial communication channels. On the other hand, there are some long-time breeders who sit on a wealth of information that they are happy to share.
Hi Sara/Nick
The most intractable problem conservation has to face (IMHO) is that so many different people hold so many different opinions/positions. One person’s opposition to saving a forest is another’s employment issue for example. Invariably, or so it seems to me, the conservation people have to adopt the ’softly softly’ approach - primarily through a fear of being accused of radicalism, or hindering free trade, or being blinkered, or even being ‘emotional’. My own feeling is that there are some things that conservationists should be able to say loud and clear - and one of those is that taking wild birds out of the wild so that a few people who’d like to own them can put them in cages and look at them is just plain wrong.
If we met we’d probably find each other likeable, intelligent, reasonable people with interesting viewpoints, but there will never come a time when I will think that putting Painted Buntings in a cage because you’d like to own them is justifiable. Similarly I would never agree with you that the argument that you buying them means they go to a better home than to someone not as nice as you holds any water: the retailer doesn’t care where they go, he/she will simply order more to re-stock, and more wild birds will suffer as a consequence. This is a fact, not an opinion. The only reason people trap birds is because they can sell them. If the market didn’t exist birds would not be trapped.
How you end the ‘desire’ for wild birds is one of those intractable problems of course. It is only my opinion that trapping wild birds is wrong, not a fact. What I would say re feeling ambivalent about the trade in wild birds is this: I’m a vegetarian not because I don’t like meat but because I could no longer in all good conscience support the industries behind meat production. I didn’t feel comfortable talking about deforestation in Brazil if I continued to eat chicken fed on soya grown in cleared forests. I didn’t feel I was in a position to talk about Albatrosses dying on long-lines if ate the fish caught on those very lines. Etc etc. Vegetarianism is a choice, an opinion if you like and some people agree with it, some people don’t. If, though, anyone reading this wants to stop the trade in wild birds then the simple, most effective thing they can do is not support the industry (which is what it is) that funds it. That is a fact, not an opinion. Like being a veggie I don’t think for one minute that my not eating meat changes the world, but that’s not the point. I don’t support the meat industry with my money no matter how much I sometimes crave roast chicken (and I still do). For the same reason I would hope that anyone with the slightest concerns about the trade in wild birds would exercise some self-restraint, think about what their money supports, and not buy.
Yes, that’s my opinion, but this is my corner of my blog and - nothing personal - I’m not going to be polite in case someone thinks bad of me. I care deeply about this issue and I don’t mind stating exactly what I think.
All the best
Charlie
But, Charlie, you have defeated your own point, which you claim as fact, by exemplification. Indeed your abstaining from meat products does not end malpractice in the industry. Similarly, some informed and well-intentioned boycotting of the market for wild caught birds will not close a market that is well in place (let us not forget that, among other threats, in Asia for example, they are selling to their own people; Bali Myna is status symbol for Indonesians, so I am glad to know that there is a program by which experienced aviculturists can work with them!). In the case of the former, I support your choice, even if it is ineffectual, unfortunately. It is not that consumption of fish/chicken by a conservation-conscious person positively affects a species or the committed individuals on your plate. In the case of the latter, placement of at least some of those birds in the care of people who are genuinely interested is good for at least some individuals of the species (and hopefully more, some day).
And adding to the complication those people (ASA/AFA), by the way, here in the States will never give in to suggestions of any organization even allegedly affiliated with HSUS. In California, they would not even support Prop. 2 which simply requires sufficient room for the hen to turn in her enclosure (no, it does not end debeaking; it does not even mean that the chickens will see light of day . . .). The only justification given for the adamant opposition was that HSUS supported the legislation. Personally, I do not think that is a good strategy for an organization that is supposed to be concerned about welfare of birds, even if HSUS is just a big, ugly lobby group.
And you also made a good point regarding conflicts of interest; there is also conflict of means in that interest. Even among conservation biologists and zoologists who share a goal, there is not consensus about how to save Puerto Rican Parrots, for example. Reform is needed on all sides of the issue, but the abolitionist approach is simply too simplistic for the reality.
I think for me the first step is to never buy any wild caught birds.
Second ban the sell of wild caught birds for pets & from being sold in pet stores.
For me I would rather get a pet from a rescue group or a breeder than subject some wild bird to deal with the stress of transitioning to a human home.
I see the value in zoos in raising awareness & in helping to repopulate species that are endangered (with hope of a release program). However I don’t see the value of wild birds being kept just by private individuals just for a hobby or as a pet.
I think its better to focus on what we can do as individuals & raising awareness of the dirty side of the business is certainly helpful.
Thanks for posting this. I’m not sure that I will be able to get that image of all the birds in the cage anytime soon.
Hi Sara
I really don’t think I have defeated my own point. What I’m clearly saying (at least I thought I was) is that even though my one action won’t end malpractice in eg the meat industry or the wild bird trade (I’m not an idiot you know) at least I know that I’m not supporting either of them with my money. It’s my personal choice, I believe it’s right, and I came to that decision after a lot of thought. I don’t agree either that standing up for what you believe is ever ineffectual. Waiverers can waiver all they like - that’s ineffectual. If people who claim to love animals don’t do anything to end those malpractices then nothing will ever change. If change has to come one person at a time then so be it.
My argument above was clearly not about aviculturalists or breeding programmes of endangered species - it was about people buying wild-caught birds ‘because they’re there to be bought’. We could throw examples at each other all day to justify our positions and neither of us will change our mind. You would buy Painted Buntings caught in the wild in Mexico thus supporting the trade in wild-caught birds even though you will know the stats of deaths of birds at the capture point, in transport, in markets, and in the homes of new owners who haven’t a clue how to look after their new purchases - I wouldn’t. I have made up my mind based on the facts I’ve read, you’ve made up yours for reasons of your own. In a nutshell that’s the great intractable problem of conservation: intelligent people hold different views.
Cheers
Charlie
HI all,
I’m going to chime in here. First, I completely agree with Charlie and others who have expressed that purchasing wild-caught birds no-matter what the intent is wrong and contributes to the trade. Indeed the birds purchased will be replaced by more birds. The birds don’t care whether they were purchased by someone who likes their colors or someone who ostensibly has deep respect for them.
Now the situation would be different if someone concerned about birds was in the position to rescue some wild-caught birds - for example birds who had been purchased by someone else who was now looking to rid themselves of the responsibility of caring for them and is not looking to make money off of them or otherwise involved in the trade - i.e. they don’t plan to go out and buy more.
Now what I really wanted to do is call in to question the assumed legitimacy of aviculture and that those seeking to produce a ’self sustaining’ captive population should be allowed to import wild-caught birds.
To what purpose does creating a “self-sustaining” population serve? By and large the primary goal of aviculture is profit and self aggrandizement- not conservation. (I would agree that those involved in directed species survival programs with the aim of restoring species to the wild be allowed to bring birds into captivity if it was deemed necessary)
One of the most common assertions made by private aviculturists is that captive breeding contributes to conservation of the species. In reality, breeding birds in captivity contributes little or nothing to conservation efforts because most captive breeding is done outside of official species survival plans or other directed conservation efforts.
Even if mutations are not specifically selected for, the moment the first generation is produced (F1 generation) a breeder has been involved, to one degree or another, in a process whereby “natural selection” no longer applies; thus the birds are diverging from whatever they were (or are) in the wild. Invariably, selection factors begin to shift from factors that enable a bird to survive in the wild to factors that enable a bird to survive in captivity so that the release of captive bred birds may reduce the fitness of wild populations.
Finally, breeders also claim that captive breeding helps to fill demand and reduces pressure on wild populations. History has not shown this to be true. In fact because captive-bred birds are often physically identical to their wild counterparts they serve as a smoke screen behind which poachers operate. In the United States for example imports of wild-caught birds were dramatically reduced because of the Wild Bird Conservation Act - not captive breeding.
It has been suggested that captive birds may support conservation efforts by serving as “ambassadors,” thus generating funds for conservation efforts. There is a lack, however, of behavioral research demonstrating an association between viewing animals in a captive setting and either knowledge about the animal or intention to take action to conserve the animal in the wild.
Studies show that zoo visitors spend on average three minutes or less viewing each exhibit and typically do not read informational signs. They are there by and large to be entertained - not educated.
Moreover, while zoos around the world receive close to $10 billion annually in revenue, less than one tenth of one percent goes to conservation efforts.
Again, I support some exceptions to import/export bans, but we need to be very specific about those exceptions and be certain that they are actually benefiting the species and not causing unnecessary suffering to individual animals.
Sorry for rambling.
Monica
I don’t agree either that standing up for what you believe is ever ineffectual.
Amen, Charlie. What are movements made up of, after all, but individuals making individual decisions?
I’d also like to comment on Sara’s question Who is to say that their [zoopark curators and avian researchers] interest is more noble than the interest of aviculturists to nurture self-sustaining populations in captivity?
I can say that, for one, simply as an informed person. The missions of zoo curators and researchers are, to a one, precisely to act in the interests of wild bird populations, and have to answer to any number of governmental and non-governmental organizations to do so.
The interests of aviculturists are all over the map and beholden to no one. I don’t doubt there are those with good intentions but there’s no way to be certain those are the views of even 10% of the whole. In the meantime, bird populations are really hurting because of illegal bird trade.
The most effective thing to do is to nip the whole thing in the bud rather than waste valuable time and effort sorting the good from the bad. Like Nick, I would support a complete ban on trade of wild birds.
Charlie, I can agree to disagree, but while Little Browns Jobs may be safe, there will be no refuge for Painted Buntings even in the case of moratorium on all bird trade. I think that trade with enforced regulations is a better option.
For the record, the only wild-caught bird I own (at least that I can affirm; I have bought birds from breeders, especially now that I recognize the difference between breeders and brokers) is Boris. I understand well that it is a privileged experience to host him, especially since I am not the seasoned aviculturist. I feel strange about having him, because there is such a moral liability if I do not learn as much as I can or successfully breed him. I did not pay for him. He was given to me for purposes of match-making by a breeder who has, from wild stock, managed to breed Bulbuls and other softbills in captivity. She also participates in breeding loan programs with zoological institutions across the nation.
By the way, here is a brief account of my only first-hand experience with illegal trade (via Mexico). Those birds, especially the Blue Grosbeak, were terrified; I cannot imagine trying to breed them even in a large planted aviary. So, on second thought, I honestly do not know if I could handle the responsibility of Painted Buntings, in my hypothetical scenario, but I know that I would want to be involved in a captive breeding effort somehow, nevertheless.
Monica, I am glad that you brought up WBCA. There are currently protocols for legal trade, and in some sense the photograph attached to the post is like those that pro-life activists brandish on their posters. Abolitionist approaches have always had unintended consequences; even abolition of human slavery, in some ways, has not been realised. Also, I agree that aviculturists are not all united in their goals, and it is also important to distinguish between a bird broker and an aviculturist. Regarding participation of aviculturists in conservation and research efforts, I re-state that the contribution of aviculturists (albeit indirectly) is valuable and potentially more so if interdisciplinary efforts could be made. While you question the goals of aviculturists and even zoo curators, interestingly, it is not terribly often that conservation biologists affect conservation of birds positively. The case of Mauritius Parakeet was rather special, and at this point, I think that we should appreciate information and experience from all sides.
Nate, I do not accept your answer, because I do not support the scientific elitism. This is another tangent, but you know that there is plenty of worthless (at least in the context of immediate conservation goals) research ongoing. I am glad that in mine I do not have to weigh the science against the life of individual birds. There are numerous examples of inconsistencies in current Stateside domestic policies even. A kid cannot pick up a Crow’s moulted feather (assuming the risk of ecto-parasites for himself), but yet I do not require a scientific collection permit to acquire the beak of a Toucan. Meanwhile, Starlings can be sacrificed without permits from F.W.S. I do not think that my right to study architectonics of feather should be more protected than the child’s curiosity, but the rules are in my favour since I am a “scientific researcher,” at least more officially so than the curious child. And furthermore, there are plenty of petty feuds within the scientific community between conservationists and ornithologists which stifle productivity (and reputability, even) on the scientific front.
—
The best solution to me seems to be prohibition of sale of the first generation of wild caught birds. The breeders may sell the captive-bred offspring as pets or for other aviculturists but not the original immigrants. There should be some procedure to facilitate not-for-profit transfer of wild caught birds among breeders (e.g. breeding loan programs)or to researchers. A long time aviculturist has suggested further that only extant populations or birds caught up in pest control (e.g. Bronze-wing Mannakins of Puerto Rico) can be imported for direct distribution in the pet trade. I would support this idea, and I do not imagine that it would be infeasible to enforce.
The “worth” of research is largely subjective.
Its effects, in terms of conservation goals, aren’t always immediately obvious. That doesn’t mean they aren’t or won’t be valuable. In that context, more research is almost always better than less, IMO.
And if supporting the stated goals and interests of zoos and researchers above the interests of “aviculturists”, a group whose intentions run the gamut, is elitist, then I’m guilty as charged.
Sara, I’m not about to jump in the middle of this… just wanted to let you know that we have beautiful painted buntings in Oklahoma. I’ve seen many males- If you ever want to make a trip to the sticks:)