The Blue-throated Macaw Listing and What is Wrong With It

Abstract

OVERVIEW

Forced by one of the many lawsuits brought against the agency by animal rights groups, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on November 4, 2013, effectively banned in the US the interstate sale of domestically-bred Blue-throated Macaws (BTMs) by ruling that they be listed as "Endangered" (as opposed to "Threatened") under the Endangered Species Act ofl973 (ESA) (see Final Rule at [I]). In otherwords ... no sales that cross state borders "for commercial purposes." The reason given is because the species is in danger of extinction in South America, although this document will demonstrate that the FWS personnel appeared to selectively use the available information in making the ruling, information that could be used to show the species is more properly classified as "Threatened." This document asserts that this disregarding of important evidence circumstantially suggests that decisions were made by some USFWS personnel based upon the same animal rights beliefs that led to the petitions and lawsuits that demanded over a dozen parrot species be listed under the Endangered Species Act even though the listings will be harmful to wild populations. In fullest form, these beliefs are that people should not keep parrots as pets; and even that no animals at all should be kept as pets or for other human use.

As of this writing, several other popular pet macaw species are also being considered for imminent listing as "Endangered," including the Hyacinth, Military and Great Green Macaws [2] [3] and the Scarlet Macaw [4]. Also see [5]. Decisions or proposed rulings have been issued for six additional species in the original petition: listing of the Crimson-shining Parrot unwarranted, of the White Cockatoo "Threatened," and of the Philippine Cockatoo and Yellow-crested (Sulfur Crested) Cockatoo "Endangered" [6]. In addition, listing of the Blue-headed Macaw and the Grey-cheeked Parakeet was deemed unwarranted [7]. The Red-crowned Parrot (Amazona viridigenalis) has been proposed for listing as a native species [8].

The USFWS in its ruling summarized its findings on the BTM as:

"Its status remains tenuous despite conservation efforts. Threats to the species include: lack of reproductive success (loss of nestlings) due to nest failure, which primarily is caused by competition for nest sites and predation by larger avian species; and the lack of suitable, available habitat in addition to its small population size." They also go on to add that they believe illegal poaching for trade specifically in the country of origin is still an issue, while acknowledging that "International trade in this species is now negligible"

One of the most well-known organizations i the world dedicated to parrot conservation is the World Parrot Trust. Another is "" the Loro Parque Fundaci6n, which has funded much of the research available on ) the BTM since 1995. Both organizations submitted their comments to the USFWS, disagreeing on all counts with the proposed ESA ruling. They did not feel such a ruling was necessary or would even have any impact on saving the species-in fact, they were emphatic that it would do more harm than  good. To ensure the impact of the "negligible" incidence of international trade wasn't somehow overlooked, the American Federation of Aviculture (APA) highlighted that in their submitted comments as a key reason to keep the USA domestic breeding program status quo, which would be strongly impacted by listing as "Endangered."

The "tenuous" status of the macaw in the wild is exactly why breeding in the US and elsewhere is important. The species is relatively easy to breed, and domestic populations listed in the domestic studbook are estimated to be at least 500 in North America and at least 1,000 world-wide (BTM studbook keeper Gen Anderson, pers. comm. February 2014). Furthermore, unofficial reports state that some 788 Blue-throated Macaws were bred by the Aviculture Breeding and Research Center (ABRC) from 1988 to the time of its closing in 2002, many of which may not be included in the US studbook. However, there still are many U.S. states without other than hobby keepers/ breeders for this species. As a result, customers need to buy interstate, and the breeders rely on interstate buyers of the pets to justify keeping their breeding programs going. Having multiple breeders helps maintain a diverse gene pool. Yet, without the funds from interstate sales of pets, the USA breeders will likely be forced to eliminate that species from their programs-the antithesis of trying to save the species.