International parrot trade
The Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wildlife Fauna and Flora was established in 1975, and consists of 184 parties which includes 183 countries along with the European Union.
[11] The top bird exporting countries are: Argentina, Tanzania, Senegal, and Indonesia[12] The largest importers of parrots are: the European Union, the United States, Singapore, Central America, and the Caribbean.
[2] The chart below graphs the gross exports of true parrots, members of the family Psittacidae, a subtaxon of the order Psittaciformes.
[14] The parrot trade has grown in Latin America, due to the wide availability of species in this area and the high global demand for exotic pets.
There is a lack of knowledge about the husbandry of exotic pets, particularly parrots, leading to inadequate care in captivity and illnesses, such as hypovitaminosis A disorder, which can be fatal.
The Act maintains that wild-caught birds may only be imported into the United States if they are produced in accordance with service-approved management plans for sustainable use of the species.
The same report indicates that Psittacidae populations have declined as much as 30% in Mexico over the past century due to a combination of habitat loss and overexploitation of the trade of these animals.
[22] Although declining parrot populations in Mexico are a modern worry, the Psittacine trade is deeply rooted in the country's history and culture.
[22] The Aztecs, who occupied Mesoamerica, also most likely traded Psittacidae feathers and animals with Pueblo peoples living in modern-day New Mexico.
[24] In September 1982 Mexico banned the commercial export of Psittacines, but because demand still existed in the United States, trade across the border continued illegally.
The sale of captive bred parrots has largely overtaken that of illegal exotics in the U.S.[28] A common misconception is that animal trafficking in Mexico today is fueled by demand from the United States similar to that of the drug trade.
The number of species that could be legally trapped and sold had steadily declined since 1979, and in 2003 the Mexican government banned the trade of all Psittacines.
These unions were often registered with the state, and agreed to terms that attempted to protect parrot populations in return for official trapping authorizations.
An absence of a concrete body of knowledge regarding Psitaccine populations and the activity of trappers within these areas meant that quotas were often exceeded and authorizations were bypassed.
[34] The report suggested that the Mexican government stop issuing trapping authorizations for all species of parrots and macaws,[34] and so a ban on the Psittacine trade was placed into effect in October 2008.
[36] PROFEPA attempts to combat the illegal parrot trade using several methods including directly attending to reports regarding illegal activity; making scheduled inspections of markets, pet shops, zoos, and UMA's; pinpointing identified locations for sale and transport; and patrolling ports, airports, and borders.
Much of PROFEPA's enforcement activity is concentrated on the point of sale, but the high rate of mortality in trafficked parrots means that intervention efforts often occur too late to save the smuggled birds.
(new info, defenders, 54) Because of its ineffective system of management, it has been estimated that PROFEPA's seizures of wildlife represent only 2% of the total annual Psittacine trade.
This report is largely based on interviews with bird traders and union leaders, and attempts to organize data collected by a variety of Mexican agencies regarding the issue.
However, the document is limited by a lack of concrete evidence specifically regarding the number of birds taken from the wild each year, and relies on interviews and speculation to fill in the gaps left by the absence of scientific data.
[41] Because of the widespread and disorganized nature of the Psitaccine trade, literature suggests that improved enforcement of current regulatory methods is not feasible due to the financial limitations of PROFEPA and other wildlife administration agencies.
A 2011 report by Pires and Moreto advocates a system of situational crime prevention in which enforcement is targeted on a community basis.
If these lodges were effective in providing adequate support to surrounding communities, it is foreseeable that the parrot trade in those areas would decrease as opportunistic trappers realize the value of psittacines as a natural resource.
