Survey of Endangered Parrot Populations in the United States

In 2015, The American Federation of Aviculture (AFA) formed an ad hoc committee to focus on three Federal laws- the ESA (Endangered Species Act), the WBCA (Wild Bird Conservation Act) and CITES (Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species) regulations and their effect on aviculture.  

We are formulating several positions to present to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in an effort to bring about  changes in regulatory enforcement to enhance, rather than hinder aviculture in the US.  This survey pertains specifically to how ESA listed foreign parrot species are regulated in the US.   Our goals are simple: (1) to convince the FWS that for the benefit of ESA-listed foreign species, it is necessary and appropriate to ease some of ESA's regulatory restrictions on aviculture, and to encourage participation in conservation by private aviculturists in the US.

The Endangered Species Act is 42 years old and overdue for revision.  Its accomplishments have been a mixed bag. The Act has saved native species within the US where action can be taken to protect habitat, reduce other pressures and fund population recovery programs, such as the successful Puerto Rican Parrot (Amazona vittata), recovery program.  However ESA regulations regarding to foreign species, do not produce an overall positive benefit for the species in the wild or in captive populations.

ESA is often considered a mechanism for funding recovery plans for foreign species.  However we found no evidence that the FWS has funded any conservation projects for ESA listed foreign parrot species in the last 42 years. Our government has no jurisdiction to enhance habitat or reduce other pressures in foreign countries.  The US government can only limit imports of listed species.

Parrot Importation essentially stopped in 1992 with passage of the WBCA. The ESA predates CITES and the WBCA, which now effectively controls parrot imports.  Yet Parrot species continue to be listed under the ESA as a result of petitions by animal rights organizations who wish to stop parrots from being kept as pets. And we anticipate more petitions.  This does not contribute to the conservation of parrots in their habitat, but severely limits movement of the birds within the United States, thereby limiting genetic diversity in captive populations.

In order to present a strong case to the Fish and Wildlife Service we need data!  We need reasonable estimates of numbers of owners (Breeders, pet owners, zoos,etc) and numbers of ESA listed birds in the US so we can produce some real estimates of the impact of listings.  Since the recent listings of moluccan, umbrella, and lesser and citron crested cockatoos and blue throated macaws, we have a new opportunity to track those effects.  FWS is still considering listing Hyacinth, Scarlet, Buffon's and Military Macaws.

The ESA does not prohibit possession of legally-obtained ESA listed species.  But it does prohibit certain activities, specifically sales across state lines, unless both the buyer and seller obtain permits.  The current permitting system is slow, expensive and onerous for many people, restricting genetic diversity in captive populations to birds within a single state.  It is also a strong dis-incentive for aviculture.  If our captive populations have a chance of serving as a "safety net" in case of the extinction of a species in the wild, aviculture should be incentivized, not discouraged.

 Another unintended and adverse consequence of ESA listing is that in approximately 25 states, possession of ESA listed species is prohibited, restricted or must be reported.  Owners may face confiscation, fines, or may not be able to sell their legally obtained birds, unless they can document pre-listing ownership, i.e. grandfathered.