Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Description of your first forum.

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Russ Glaes » Wed, 08 Jul 1992 06:14:43



Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anywhere in this bill where it
talks about anyone being able to seize birds without a warrant, simply
because you can't prove their origin.
Admittedly, though, this will have a devastating effect on domestic
breeders.

Russ Glaeser

 
 
 

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Thuan Nguy » Wed, 08 Jul 1992 03:24:40


The following is the full text of bill HR 5013, the [almost] current
version of the bird conservation bill.  Gary Sullivan told me that
the most current version of the bill does not have SECTION 9.
Gary also said that this bill will be voted on very soon.

The text was typed in by Denise Richards.  (Thanks, Denise).  

This bill will have wide reaching impact on the hobby.  Please let your
Congressional Representative know what you like or don't like
about this bill before they vote on it.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 5013

A bill to promote the conservation of *** wild birds.
In the House Of Representatives April 29, 1992
Mr. Studds introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the
Committees on Merchant Marine Fisheries and Ways and Means.

A BILL

A bill to promote the conservation of *** wild birds.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992".

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to promote the conservation of *** birds by
encouraging wild bird conservation and management programs in countries of
origin; by ensuring that all trade in such species involving the United
States is biologically sustainable and to the benefit of the species; and
by limiting or prohibiting imports of *** birds when necessary to ensure
that *** wild bird populations are not harmed be removal for the trade.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--

(1) the international pet trade in wild-caught birds is contributing to
the decline of many species in the wild, and that mortality remains
unacceptably high for many species;

(2) the United States, as the world's largest importer of *** wild birds,
should play a substantial role in finding solutions to these problems,
including in assisting countries of origin in implementing programs of wild
bird conservation, and in ensuring that their actions are not detrimental to
the survival of the species in the wild;

(3) although sustainable utilization of *** birds has the potential to
create values in them and their habitats that can help conserve them, and
promote the maintenance of biological diversity, utilization that is not
sustainable should not be allowed;

(4) many countries have chosen not to export their wild birds for the pet
trade, and their efforts should be supported;

(5) those countries that choose to export their wild birds often lack the
means to effectively implement scientifically based management plans, and
should be assisted to bring their wild bird trade down to sustainable levels;

(6) international concern has been focused on serious conservation problems
which currently exist in the trade in wild-caught animals, including birds;

(7) article XVI of the Convention permits any party to adopt stricter domestic
measures for the regulation of trade in all species, whether or not listed in
the appendices;

(8) the necessary population assessments, monitoring programs, and appropriate
remedial measures for appendix II species are not always being undertaken in
order to maintain species at level above which they might become eligible for
inclusion in Appendix I; and

(9) the parties to the Convention have recommended that parties take
appropriate measures, including suspension of trade for commercial purposes
between parties when appropriate, regarding trade in species of birds that
have significantly high mortality rates in transport.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Act--
(1) the term "Convention" means the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed on March 3, 1973, and
the appendices thereto.

(2) the term "*** bird" means any live or dead member of the class Aves
that is not indigenous to the United States, and includes any egg, or
offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof, excluding domestic
poultry, dead sport-hunted birds, dead museum specimens, dead scientific
specimens, and products manufactured from such birds, and birds in the
following families: Phasianidae, Numididae, Cracidae, Meleagrididae,
Megapodiidae, Anatidae, Struthionidae, Rheaidae, Dromaiinae, and Gruidae.

(3) the term "import" means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or
attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing,
or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs
laws of the United States.

(4) the term "person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust,
association, or any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent,
department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, or any State,
municipality, or political subdivision of a State; or any other entity
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(5) the term :Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of the Interior's designee.

(6) the term "species" means any species, subspecies or any distinct
population segment of such species or subspecies and includes hybrids of any
of the above.

(7) the term "State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the *** Islands, Guam,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(8) the term :sustainable use" means any use of an *** bird that ensures
that the bird is removed from the wild in a manner designed to conserve its
species and its habitat. Such use involves, among other things: the scientific
determination of the productive capacities of the species and its associated
ecosystems, and the implementations of a management program of use designed
to maintain the species throughout its range at a level consistent with
its role in the ecosystem and well above the level at which it may become
threatened.

(9) the term "trade" means import.

(10) the term "United States" when used in a geographical context includes all States as defined in the Act.

SEC. 5. RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS.

(a) Prohibition. --Four years after the date of enactment of this Act and
thereafter, the importation of any species of *** bird into the United
States is prohibited unless such species is included as an approved species
in the list to be established and maintained by the Secretary under section
5(b) or otherwise permitted under section 7 of this Act.

(b) IMPORT QUOTAS.--(1) PRESCRIBED QUOTAS.--at any time within four years after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary may prescribe in the
Federal Register specific annual quotas or moratoria with respect to imports of
any species of *** birds. Notice of such quotas shall be provided to affected
exporting countries in sufficient time to provide for their comments and
consultations. Such quotas shall be allocated on a country by country basis,
where appropriate.  In making these determinations, the Secretary shall,
utilizing the best available scientific and management information, consider
the following criteria:

    (A) the population status of the species in the wild, throughout its range;
    (B) actions recommended by the conference of the parties to the Convention,
        Convention committees, or the Convention secretariat to regulate trade
        in *** birds;
    (C) the levels of mortality associated with trade in the species;
    (D) use for commercial, recreational, scientific, educational, or
        subsistence purposes of the species;
    (E) disease, predation, or other natural or human induced factors
        detrimental to the survival of the species;
    (F) the adequacy of regulatory and enforcement mechanisms in all countries
        of origin of the species, including control of illegal trade;
    (G) the present of threatened destruction or curtailment of the habitat or
        range of the species;
    (H) the country of origin's management plan for the species; and
    (I) the ability of the country of origin to implement the Convention,
        particularly as regards the establishment of a scientific authority
        and the implementation of Article IV of the Convention.

(2) ANNUAL QUOTAS.--Unless the Secretary has prescribed specific quotas on
imports of *** birds pursuant to paragraph (1) by the date one hundred and
eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
prescribe quotas pursuant to the following:

    (A) Determine the average annual imports of each species for the most
        recent five calendar years prior to the date of enactment of the Act,
        hereafter called the "base period".
    (B) For the year beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, limit
        imports of each species to 75 percent of the average annual imports
        during the base period.
    (C) For each successive year thereafter, until the fourth anniversary of
        the date of enactment of this Act or until superseded by specific
        import quotas or restrictions prescribed in accordance with paragraph
        (1), reduce the annual limits on imports of *** birds by 25 percent
        of the average annual imports of each species during the base period.

(3) LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES.--The Secretary shall establish and periodically
modify an approved list of species, on a country-by-country basis when
appropriate, that may be imported without an import permit under this Act.
Species shall only be included on the approved list if:

    (a) After public notice and comment, the Secretary determines, based on
        the best available scientific and management information, that--
        (i) a scientifically based and strictly controlled management plan
            for the species is in place and is implemented and enforced;
       (ii) the management plan for the species provides
...

read more »

 
 
 

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Gerard Fry » Thu, 09 Jul 1992 04:48:41


I sense that there is major opposition to any bill restricting imports
among readers of r.p.b, but I certainly don't oppose them.  OK, so I
have a mere blue-front which would almost certainly make the approved
list.  But I always feel guilty when people see how entertaining my
bird is and start talking of buying a bird for themselves (I inherited
my Lafitte).  I would NEVER buy any ***; putting money into the
system just increases the liklihood of smuggling and death. The more
endangered the species the greater the problem.  For example, never
even think of buying a Hyacinth Macaw, even if you see the egg laid
yourself and know for certain that the bird is domestically bred.  If
you enjoy your bird, then others will want one and may not be as
discerning as you in their choice of source.  You would have
contributed, albeit indirectly, to the the almost certain extinction of
the species in the wild.

Ideally, every country in the world should have the same strict laws on
bird exports that Australia does (indeed, such laws should be expanded
to cover all fauna and flora).  Such laws would not just protect
endangered species, they would also counter the very real risks of
upsetting local ecologies by importing alien organisms (nobody who
lives in Hawaii can escape being depressed by the enormity of the
extinctions going on here - and don't think it is just and island
problem - look at all those charlatans in Global ReLeaf who want to
justify clear-cutting in the southwest by planting Afghan pines!!).
Such laws will never be written, of course, so it's up to us consumers
to police ourselves.  I think bills like HR 5013 make a lot of sense.
--

School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
University of Hawaii at Manoa

 
 
 

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Robert Wiega » Thu, 09 Jul 1992 23:42:10


Quote:

>I sense that there is major opposition to any bill restricting imports
>among readers of r.p.b, but I certainly don't oppose them.  OK, so I

The problem isn't with restricting imports, its with the particuler
schemes being proposed to do this. I think most people here would agree
that some control over importing is required.

Quote:
>have a mere blue-front which would almost certainly make the approved
>list.  But I always feel guilty when people see how entertaining my
>bird is and start talking of buying a bird for themselves (I inherited
>my Lafitte).  I would NEVER buy any ***; putting money into the
>system just increases the liklihood of smuggling and death. The more
>endangered the species the greater the problem.  For example, never
>even think of buying a Hyacinth Macaw, even if you see the egg laid
>yourself and know for certain that the bird is domestically bred.  If

Actually, for some birds such as the Hyacinth, domestic breeding may be
the only way to preserve them. There numbers in the wild have declined
so much that the captive ones may be their only hope. For many birds
habitat descruction has left them nowhere to live in the wild.

Quote:
>you enjoy your bird, then others will want one and may not be as
>discerning as you in their choice of source.  You would have
>contributed, albeit indirectly, to the the almost certain extinction of
>the species in the wild.

Its our job to try to educate people who are interested in our birds.
Besides, a domestically hand raised bird is a better pet then a wild
bird, so you will be doing the other person a favor by convincing
them to buy from a local breeder.

Quote:
>Ideally, every country in the world should have the same strict laws on
>bird exports that Australia does (indeed, such laws should be expanded

I don't completely agree with Australia's export police. They actually
kill birds as pests, but will not allow anyone to capture and export
these birds. This doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
>to cover all fauna and flora).  Such laws would not just protect
>endangered species, they would also counter the very real risks of
>upsetting local ecologies by importing alien organisms (nobody who
>lives in Hawaii can escape being depressed by the enormity of the
>extinctions going on here - and don't think it is just and island

This is a very real problem, unfortunatly its also a difficult one to solve.
The only pet bird I have heard of causing a problem is Quaker parrots.
These birds ar able to live through most of the US, and are considered
an agricultrial pest. They are actually illegal in some ares.

Quote:
>problem - look at all those charlatans in Global ReLeaf who want to
>justify clear-cutting in the southwest by planting Afghan pines!!).
>Such laws will never be written, of course, so it's up to us consumers
>to police ourselves.  I think bills like HR 5013 make a lot of sense.
>--

>School of Ocean & Earth Science & Technology
>University of Hawaii at Manoa

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wiegand - Motorola Inc.
uunet!motcid!wiegand
Disclamer: I didn't do it - I was somewhere else at the time.
 
 
 

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Doug Humphr » Mon, 13 Jul 1992 18:52:52



Quote:
>I sense that there is major opposition to any bill restricting imports
>among readers of r.p.b, but I certainly don't oppose them.  OK, so I
>have a mere blue-front which would almost certainly make the approved
>list.  But I always feel guilty when people see how entertaining my
>bird is and start talking of buying a bird for themselves (I inherited
>my Lafitte).  I would NEVER buy any ***; putting money into the
>system just increases the liklihood of smuggling and death. The more
>endangered the species the greater the problem.  For example, never
>even think of buying a Hyacinth Macaw, even if you see the egg laid
>yourself and know for certain that the bird is domestically bred.

I don't follow your reasoning here; if all imports were banned, and
domestic breeders were allowed to operate, then how are birds in
the wild being endangered?  When I say banned, I really mean that
*any* bird being brought into the country that is wild would be
illegal.  There might be a single mechanism to allow for a very
limited number to come in for breeding stocks, but that would have
to be very small, and tightly controlled.  If you make birds just
as illegal to smuggle in as ***, then nobody will smuggle birds;
*** is worth more per pound, and doesn't make noise and die
while you are trying to smuggle it inside imported sewer pipes...

I can see that the prices would go up (supply would be lower,
against a more or less constant demand) but all of the money
from the sale of birds would then be going to people breeding in
the US;  I would say that it would be a very GOOD thing to buy
a Hyacinth from a domestic breeder, as long as you know the
chick was domestically laid and hatched.  The eight or nine or
ten thousand dollars that you pay the breeder will keep them
funded for a while, trying to get more to hatch.  More hatching
means more birds here, and a strict ban means that none of that
money (which is what the smugglers are after) goes to the
smugglers.

Quote:
> If
>you enjoy your bird, then others will want one and may not be as
>discerning as you in their choice of source.  You would have
>contributed, albeit indirectly, to the the almost certain extinction of
>the species in the wild.

If I enjoy my bird, then other may too and might want one,
and that is bad?  Pardon my saying so, but I don't think that
makes sense, if all those people can buy are domestically
raised birds.  Domestic Hyacinths *are* available you know;
other birdos too.  While "a***atoo in every living room,
a hyacinth in every parlor" may not make it as a political
slogan, it surely would cause a lot of good research to be
done on breeding techniques and the generation of more
domestic birds.

Still, the odds that the demand is going to get so great
that we have "bird-runners" like we had whisky-runners are
pretty small.  A really serious ban on imports will help
support the domestic breeders; people looking at a nice
hand raised bird won't have the choice of "oh, but that
one in the corner is so much cheaper" any longer, but
then they won't get a twisted bird that was never equiped
to deal with people, and will never be what these people
really want it to be, so it will sit neglected for way too
long, cursed by a long lifespan.  

Also, banning exports?  Thenyou have to coordinate the actions
of many countries.  You might pull it off, but that will not
be quick, and a good solution seems to need a time componant.
An import ban is under the sole control of the US, would not
be some sort of thing that a big trade partner would start a trade
war over, and could be pulled off.  Without stopping people
from owning the types of birds that they want.

Doug Humphrey
--

 
 
 

Full Text of Congressional Bill HR 5013

Post by Gary Sulliv » Thu, 16 Jul 1992 02:34:40



Quote:

>Ideally, every country in the world should have the same strict laws on
>bird exports that Australia does (indeed, such laws should be expanded
>to cover all fauna and flora).

  Australia's laws aren't great.  Several species have become extinct
because, while they were disappearing in the wild, Australia still
prevented even the most qualified people from obtaining animals for
captive breeding projects.

  In these cases the animals (I think it was frog species in several
cases) went extinct from the planet once they became extinct in the wild.
Since they were "only frogs", there wasn't sufficient interest from
Australian zoos and government conservation types to intervene.
There were several people who were sufficiently knowledgeable and
dedicated to breed the frogs and who wanted to become involved, but
the Australian laws so glowingly referred to above were used to prevent
the species from being saved.

  Some people think that's a good thing, but not me.  There are those
who think that if the animal no longer exists in the wild then it
shouldn't exist in captivity either.  That seems quite absurd to me.

  We must remember that the loss of habitat and the dead-animal trade
are the major pressures forcing species' extinction.  The pet trade is,
in nearly all cases, way down on the list.

  All this is not to say I oppose HR 5013 as currently amended.
I think I like the bill in its present form.  I just don't believe
the Australian example is necessarily a good one to follow.

---------------------------------