Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992

Was it good? Was it bad? What do you all think?

If the statistics are correct that I have read and it has reduced the import of wild caught birds to the US by 90% then I would say it was a good thing. The more we can do to stop birds being wild caught the better. It is sad to see wild caught birds.
What does everyone else think. I don't know a whole lot about this act so I am curious to hear some opinions.

I think it was a great idea. Any wild animal conservation act is a good idea to me.

Because wild birds cant be exported from Oztralia, Farmers shoot thousands of valuable birds each year. Birds that cost 2000 bux each in England are shot every day in paddocks around the Country. Would the birds be cheaper for people in Europe if Farmers in Oztralia could export live birds? Aside from cost, is a bird in captivity in London, better off than a bird dead in a paddock in Country Australia? Im not sure I know the answer to that one.

Redballoon said:

Because wild birds cant be exported from Oztralia, Farmers shoot thousands of valuable birds each year. Birds that cost 2000 bux each in England are shot every day in paddocks around the Country. Would the birds be cheaper for people in Europe if Farmers in Oztralia could export live birds? Aside from cost, is a bird in captivity in London, better off than a bird dead in a paddock in Country Australia? Im not sure I know the answer to that one.

Click to expand...

Wow - thanks RedBalloon - I never really thought about it from that perspective. I asked the question, but I was thinking more in terms of 20 years later - are we better or worse and was not thinking about the birds left behind and their conditions. It's completely valid - I know it changed aviculture (for better or worse) in this country but I completely ignored the conditions and situations as to why birds are removed from other countries.

I think, in terms of the behavior, conditions, health, nutrition, we're better off as parronts. But, the law didn't take into account the conditions and why the birds were being sent to other countries.

If we could finesse the law, in hindsight... what could be changed?

I would also enquire as to the health of the thousands of "smuggled" birds that suffer and die because of artificially high bird prices. Because its illegal it means there will always be someone prepared to try and stuff eggs or babies into his "fat rolls' and board a plane to make a quick buck.
I think I would rather have some one like Peta owning 10 Correllas that cost her 100 bux for the lot, and knowing the conditions in which the birds endured to get there.

A legal industry can monitored and it can be taxed.
Farmers kill the birds that eat their seed and cost them money. If a farmer can make money from something it becomes a thing of value and not a pest. Adding legal value to the wild birds is good for the birds, or bad? You tell me.

Redballoon said:

I would also enquire as to the health of the thousands of "smuggled" birds that suffer and die because of artificially high bird prices. Because its illegal it means there will always be someone prepared to try and stuff eggs or babies into his "fat rolls' and board a plane to make a quick buck.
I think I would rather have some one like Peta owning 10 Correllas that cost her 100 bux for the lot, and knowing the conditions in which the birds endured to get there.

A legal industry can monitored and it can be taxed.
Farmers kill the birds that eat their seed and cost them money. If a farmer can make money from something it becomes a thing of value and not a pest. Adding legal value to the wild birds is good for the birds, or bad? You tell me.

Click to expand...

Redballoon, the plight of the wild birds is not one but is one that needs to be considered, especially in regard to my initial question - was the law good or bad?

One thing, in absence of the wild birds is that there has been a growth of recognition about birds and their needs - something that I don't know would have happened as rapidly without the law. At the same time, with what you raised, and the law that's there, what do you think can be done to fix it?

I asked whether it was good or bad - now, but it's a better one that you raised - what about the rest and what became as a result.

So, you tell me - I don't disagree and absolutely agree with what you presented.

But, like I asked you, per your post what can be done to fix it?



And, I asked a question, for discussion.

Dont ask me,...Im just throwing cats among pigeons here.

Well Red I never thought about it that way. It's just different then it is here, I don't see animals like that being shot because they are such a pest to farmers. Honestly I don't really know what to think is better. I'm confused and really gotta think about it before I decide.

I am not saying I know the answer. I cant even say I know where I stand on the issue. I have seen farmers catching birds in nets but its much easier to shoot them. When the cameras are not around, thats exactly what they do.
A flock of wild Correllas can destroy a years crops in a day. Were talking flocks of 2 and 3 thousand birds swarming like locusts over farmers crops. So if mating pairs could be trapped and sold, the price would come down, the farmer would have another income stream, but would the birds be better off? The plight of the birds is the last thing on the farmers mind. I dont think Australian wild birds are in any danger of extinction. Farmers will go broke before we kill off all the wild birds in OZ.

In some ways, I think it was very good. Since the law was passed, our knowledge of how to care and handle our fids has increased. I don't think that would have happened without the law. It was a good law in some ways, but now for the wild ones, there is exactly what you brought up.

I don't know the answer either. Here in CT, we have a flock of wild budgies and a flock of monk parrots. There are some mixed stories of how those two flocks came into existence, but the one thing I can say is that when an electric company sought to destroy some of the monk parrots (via killing the birds and pulling down the nests while destroying the eggs), local outcry stopped it before it started and a far more reasonable solution was found (and paid for by the company - the nests were moved, no birds killed, and all handled by wildlife experts).

There's that part and point that what you describe grips me. On the one hand, spending my summers on a farm - there's that pesky critter versus pests... crops are livelihood and life to many farmers. On the other, you just don't do that (and by you I don't mean you, you, I mean, well... you in general). Essentially, you can't take away their land and then provide a crop on the land and then kill first, deal with it after. It's not fair.