Aviculturists have imported wild birds for decades. All species of commercial importance are already in captivity in numbers that encompass sufficient genetic diversity by the private sector. No special exemptions are needed for captive breeding.

In conclusion, scientists that study birds believe the passage of a strengthened H.R. 5013 is vital to conservation of birds both in the U.S. and worldwide. This bill will help transform a trade gone awry into a sustainable one.

I thank the Chairman and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify and offer my services.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beissinger can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. STUDDS. Next, Mr. Gary Lilienthal, Vice President/General Counsel, American Federation of Aviculture.

STATEMENT OF GARY LILIENTHAL

Mr. LILIENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee.

My name is Gary Lilienthal. I am pleased to present the position of the American Federation of Aviculture. AFA, as we call it, is a federation of almost 200 aviculture organizations as well as individual and corporate members throughout the United States who are interested in aviculture: The keeping, breeding, and raising of exotic birds.

Like our members and tens of thousands of aviculturists and the million of companion bird owners in the United States, I am an aviculturist. I am a second-generation aviculturist from Massachusetts. Our organization funds research, promotes conservation activities, encourages captive breeding and educates you, our elected officials, and the public.

We are deeply concerned about conservation of avian wildlife in their natural habitats, as well as managed environments. AFA acknowledges that intense pressures are placed upon exotic bird populations by devastating habitat destruction, hunting, predation, planned eradication programs, smuggling and unregulated trade.

We are committed to the concepts of biodiversity, sustainable yield, and renewable resources and we believe that by giving exotic birds and their habitat value, both can be saved. But without trade as a resource, birds in their habitats have no value to people of developing nations.

A rationally regulated and managed bird trade is one of the methods of giving the rain forests and their avian habitats value. That is, as we see it, the only way to preserve the rain forests and the birds.

We believe the legal importation process can and should be improved on a national basis. That is why we participated in the Cooperative Working Group on the Bird Trade. But we are concerned that H.R. 5013 may unduly restrict or prohibit the bird trade, inhibit the humanitarian benefits of aviculture, and render the rain forest valuable only as deforested land.

In considering H.R. 5013, we ask you to recognize the greatest pressure on birds and their countries of origin is not trade. Any excessive regulation of the bird trade is not a method of conservation,

it is merely a decision not to allow trade. Overregulation of trade may actually doom a species to extinction.

The excessive restrictions on trade in H.R. 5013 we are concerned could result in increased smuggling. Please don't confuse the horrors of smuggling with legal trade. All aviculturists abhor smuggling and our organization and our members continue to assist our government in preventing smuggling.

Aviculture is a valuable conservation tool for species in jeopardy. Aviculturists in the United States, your constituents, are saving species through aviculture. Aviculture is conservation.

If H.R. 5013 is to work, we feel it must provide a rational and workable standard sensitive to divergent interests and agendas in countries of origin. It must insure aviculture will flourish by exempting breeding by aviculturists and zoos and by facilitating importation of foreign captive-bred birds and export of U.S. captive-bred birds.

It must provide for even-handed and enlightened enforcement and not intimidate aviculturists from participating in this massive grassroots effort. It must provide that it will be the law of our land so that anti-trade activists who do not share our philosophy will not continue to seek prohibitive State laws or continue to coerce the airlines to refuse international and interstate commerce in legally-owned birds creating an anti-conservation and anti-aviculture activity.

We ask you to understand that aviculture is our contribution to conservation and the quality of life. We believe in aviculture, not extinction. Help us continue to do what we do best-breed and care for our avian companions and help us to enhance the lives of your constituents, the citizens of the United States who, by the millions, share their lives with exotic avian companions. Please recognize the contributions of the tens of thousands of people who raise and breed exotic avian species in our country.

We feel if H.R. 5013 is truly to be the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, it must also be the Aviculture Enhancement Act of 1992. We pledge to work with you to that end.

On behalf of the American Federation of Aviculture, I thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lilienthal can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. STUDDS. Dr. Bruning, Curator, Department of Ornithology, New York Zoological Society.

STATEMENT OF DON BRUNING

Mr. BRUNING. Mr. Chairman and committee Members, I thank you very much for this opportunity to testify this morning.

I will try and avoid repeating a lot of what the other speakers have said. There is a lot of agreement on most items. Let me start by telling you that I am curator and chairman of the Department of Ornithology for the New York Zoological Society. I am here to testify for organizations from the zoo association to aviculture groups which range from pheasant and waterfowl breeders to a number of specialized parrot societies which I have listed in my

While each of the organizations which I represent may not have exactly the same views on every part of the legislation question. They agree on the basic principles as follows: First, we recognize the current importation system for exotic birds and associated mortality of birds must come to an end as soon as possible before it endangers any more species in the wild or threatens our domestic and pet birds in the U.S. with the introduction of more avian diseases or pest species.

Second, we recognize the large volume of legally-imported birds offers a great cover for smuggled birds that makes law enforcement extremely difficult.

Third, we believe that well-organized captive breeding programs can supply the U.S. demand for pet birds.

We have proposed a series of changes to H.R. 5013 which we feel offers the best chance to achieve the goals that the aviculture, zoological, and conservation groups are seeking. The following is a brief summary: We believe the phaseout and quota system proposed is too complicated, too costly, as well as difficult to set up and administer. The goal can be achieved by modifying the approved species list in section 5 and exemption in section 7 of the proposal.

In section 5, we propose setting a deadline for the establishment of the first approved list and use that date as the date for full implementation of the Act. We recognize the three stage suggestion that you gave earlier. We believe that, at the same time, we must put an end as soon as possible to the entire process and allow the staged approach to establish that approved list.

We believe that nine months is a reasonable time if only the species imported in numbers greater than 200 per year are considered for listing, initially, since these species make up more than 95 percent of the wild-caught birds imported. The initial approved list should be established within nine months by the Secretary who can add to it and delete from the list as warranted.

The public can petition for any changes but must provide documentation for any change of a listing or delisting. The approved list we feel should have two sections. The first would be a list of captive-bred species which could be moved freely. These species are not covered under H.R. 5013 currently and we believe they should be.

We also believe that to avoid abuse of the personally-owned pet bird, that exemption needs to be added that the owner must be returning to the country after having been continuously out of the country for a minimum of a year and would be limited to two specimens in any one year. We think this is important to avoid this becoming a loophole.

The cooperative breeding programs exemption needs to be expanded to make it clear that the intent is to prevent the extinction of the species. The cooperative breeding program should be encouraged if they meet certain criteria. Our proposal is that these criteria be developed by the Secretary in consultation with the interested organizations from the aviculture, conservation, and zoological communities. The development and administration of these programs would be the responsibility of the sponsoring organ

ization provided they meet the required standards set by the Secretary.

This would take a lot of burden off the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and force cooperative efforts. To this point, no one has mentioned there is another valuable input these birds can have in ecotourism in their home country.

In summary, all of the groups I represent want to see an end to the current system. We want to see a system which allows private aviculture working together and with zoos in cooperative programs to have access to additional genetic stock in the wild as needed for successful captive breeding programs. At the same time, we want to see emphasis placed on habitat conservation efforts and ecotourism in countries of origin. We want to see the U.S. assist countries in enforcing their laws which is a serious problem now. Most countries prohibit the trade but simply cannot enforce it.

So we would urge that H.R. 5013 be passed with the amendments we have suggested. We thank you for the opportunity to provide written and oral testimony. The world's birds need your help now. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruning can be found at the end of the hearing.]

Mr. STUDDS. Thank you very much. We don't seem to be at the consensus stage yet. We have a week to go.

As I understand the principle, there are lots of suggestions for improvements of the bill. The fundamental question about which there still seems to be some disagreement is the question of timing. The Administration's proposal in the bill introduced is that we take four years to phaseout CITES-listed species.

The three-tiered proposal which we sort of suggested this morning would immediately terminate the most threatened CITES-listed species and as a second step, would allow continued imports of the other CITES-listed species until an approved list is prepared, and finally, would deal with the non-CITES species in a similar fashion. Gerry Bertrand, as I understand it, would impose an immediate and total ban on all birds and then, after a study, allow those that can safely be traded to be traded. Is that a fair summary of the three general propositions that have been addressed by people here?

I guess what the subcommittee is going to have to do is give a week or so's time for everybody to scratch their heads and see if we can indeed achieve the long sought-after consensus and, if we have that, proceed as fast as possible with legislation. If we are unable to do that, we have to decide what if any action to take in the absence of that consensus.

Does anyone on the panel want to reflect on that fundamental question? Dr. Bertrand.

Mr. BERTRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The conservation community is not inflexible on this. However, we haven't seen any evidence on the record as to why this transition period is needed. In fact, the trade itself has suffered a oneyear shutdown as a result of a Newcastle ban. They survived that very well and then trade came back in.

They have had a year in which they have lost half of their imports during the course of the past year because 70 of the world's

airlines have decided not to take part in this trade because of its nature, any longer. So we have airlines not carrying it. In fact, we have major pet stores in the United States, Docktor Pet and a wide variety of other pet stores, the biggest chains in America refusing to carry wild-caught birds. The shift is already occurring. It is changing now.

I mean, if we have evidence that the transition is needed, I would like to know who it is needed to protect. Is it needed to protect those 10 major dealers who bring in 80 percent of the birds, most of whom we heard this morning are under indictment or being investigated? Where is the evidence that we need to have a phaseout?

And if, in fact, Fish and Wildlife Service can act quickly, why not have them act quickly to come up with a clean list while the ban is in effect. That is the most conservative approach for protecting the birds.

Now, if there is good evidence and it is shown to us as to why we need the phasein where it is effective as a use of tax dollars, where it doesn't duplicate and cause a lot of unnecessary paperwork, that is going to end up changed nine months or two years from now. We are flexible. In the absence of evidence of why we have to have a phaseout, we aren't willing to accept it on its face. I think that is a fair statement of where the 50 groups that I represent are coming from.

I mean, if there is evidence, sure we will take a look at it, we will be delighted to be flexible on this. New Jersey has shown the ban works. In fact, there are more pet dealers in New Jersey selling birds now than ever before. There are more people buying birds because captive birds make fine pets, captive-bred birds.

Wild-caught birds would just as soon take your ear lobe off. Captive-bred birds are the way to go. We want to encourage that, not discourage it. I am concerned, too, about the fact we could lose more species between now and 36 months from now. I am not inflexible. It is just I would love to hear some argument why we really need this.

Mr. STUDDS. I think you are about to. I fervently hope our guest bird is captive-bred. Who would like to respond to that? Mr. Meyers.

Mr. MEYERS. First of all, some of the statements made by Mr. Bertrand. New Jersey has not yet been able to propose regulations to implement its law. Secondly, he made a comment about Docktor Pet Centers. That decision only applies to seven company-owned stores, not the entire franchise.

There is a group in the industry that has been trying to work within the conservation community by supporting WWF and ICUN, to try to bring the trade into harmony with conservation programs. To impose an immediate ban and impact people in these economic times, who are having substantial problems with or without the airline embargo issue, is an undue burden.

What we need is an ordinary transition to work within the conservation framework-not send the wrong message to Third World countries who, even after the Rio Summit, believe they have the right to deal with their own natural resources. Immediate prohibitions and bans will lead to smuggling.