Abstract
At this writing I don't know who has been elected president of the AFAand I don't really care. I have faith. Each president so far has been the very person to fill the AFA's needs of the moment. And I expect that trend to continue.
Something to remember, though, is that each president of the APA voluntarily shouldered an overwhelming burden and carried its huge weight through at least two years of service. Do not be quick to criticize. Rather, lend a hand to support the president and the other elected officers of the APA. Our voice has been heard in the land and I expect it to become increasingly more important as crucial events close in around us. With a good president and good, unified support the APA will continue to be the voice of aviculture and bird conservation.
Stony silence is my traditional reaction to the retirement of an APA president-not out of spite or ill will but due to a preoccupation with the future. In the case of Lee Phillips I want to break tradition and pay her homage.
From my standpoint as editor I can state with full conviction that Lee Phillips has been very good to work with. True, she has, at times, delivered righteous blows of chastisement to the chops of your humble servant but only when they were called for and with no malice or vindictiveness. Her calm, methodical iron fist was clothed with class and dignity. She took her office with an open mind and was the president who best heard and understood the needs of the Publications Committee which is my only concern. Although it took almost two years, I feel that Phillips has provided the necessary impetus that will vastly improve the Watchbird's production schedule as well as its contents. The fruits of Phillips' efforts will be enjoyed by the next APA president. Hats off to Lee Phillips. We'll miss her around here.
The last few months have been times of turmoil. Various legislative pressures have posed hard questions for aviculturists and at present each aviculturist has some soul-searching to do. Some of you, without having thought deeply on the matter, have erroneously concluded that there is conflict between aviculture and conservation. Consider the following letter which demonstrates the point perfectly:
Dear Editor:
This letter comments on the editorial by Mattice and Dingle in the February 1985 issue of Watchbird. The editorial expressed concern about the effects on a vi culture of legislation banning the sale of wild caught birds. As hobbyist breeders, we also share this concern. However, we disagree with some of the arguments as well as the overall tone of the editorial.
Mr. Mattice and Mr. Dingle attempt to guess the motives of Mr. Seymour and others involved in pushing through the New York legislation. This attempt contributes nothing to the arguments against the legislation, is sarcastic in tone, and is demeaning to the dignity of Watchbird.
The authors advocate "free enterprise and the possibility of making a profit" as a defense against conservation legislation. One doesn't have to look far for examples of clashes of interest between free enterprise and the conservation of wildlife. When these interests collide, our society repeatedly and with increasing consistency regulates free enterprise to protect rare species. This is a trend which seems to be gaining in strength throughout the industrialized world. We support this trend and would wish to expand it to include a recognition that, not only rare species deserve to be protected, but all species should be cherished and conserved. This is not an attack on free enterprise but is a pragmatic recognition that unregulated enterprise has a history of destroying that which is irreplaceable.
The argument that some imported birds are "pest" species in their native countries and, therefore, do not require the help of protective legislation is a poor one. Pest status is often the prior step to endangered species status. The fate of the Carolina Parakeet should remind us that even "pest" species can be rapidly exterminated by a combination of slaughter and habitat destruction. That Mr. Mattice and Mr. Dingle should mention that the Monk parakeet has become a pest in New York is ironic. What better example could be cited by the enemies of aviculture for the dangers of importing exotic birds.
The most naive argument in the editorial, however, is that the future of wildlife conservation lies in getting the poorer countries of the world to manage their wildlife to produce sustained yields for export. The authors state "no one wants to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs,'' but, in fact, mankind is everywhere killing off geese that lay golden eggs. Of course, there are a handful of small scale demonstration projects in Third World countries which manage wildlife, and efforts like these are to be applauded. However, conservation is a low priority in countries where hunger and lack of shelter are primary concerns, and where official corruption obstructs even the best efforts at conservation. The potential profits from exporting wildlife will rarely compensate for the high costs of effective wildlife management. The contention that natives only catch the most common birds for export is not supported by facts. Some species imported into this country, Scarlet macaws for example, are suffering a restriction in their range in part because of capture for export. The argument fails to consider the higher returns natives can receive from the capture of rarer species. Many rare species are worth the considerable effort to capture because they bring very high prices.