Old one but non the less worrying. I do agree with the logic of the article. Why keep focussing on birds or even just parrots? This trade is just as appalling in fish mammals, reptile and amphibians. Should we not look for partners for a campaign to ban all wild pet trade?
This isn’t just old Roelant, it was seriously mistaken at the time and never should have seen the light of day.
The question of banning trade in other groups of animals is an interesting one, but it’s not safe to assume that it is ‘just as appalling’ for these other animals. In some cases it may be worse from a welfare, conservation, or biodiversity perspective, and in many cases, not nearly as bad. Parrots are truly unique in terms of the degree to which huge numbers of species are threatened by trade, have been targeted by trade for millennia, live very long lives, have remarkable intelligence, AND carry diseases which are zoonotic and economically devastating, etc ... in some cases, some of these could be applied to other groups of animals, but my guess is not too many.
In any event, there is a great deal of value in campaigning for a clear, concise, understandable and potentially achievable goal, particularly in an area where one has expertise, and limiting our focus to things with feathers works out pretty well. Most of us in the parrot world know little about trade in these other groups, the threats associated with it, and the opportunities to see it end. Who knows, there may even be sectors of this trade which are truly sustainable and genuinely supportive of local peoples - live rock perhaps, or farmed giant clams - arguments which were (and are) made in support of the live bird trade. I’m not saying there are examples like this, but there might well be, it’s not a foregone conclusion and most of us in the parrot world are ill-positioned to know or to guess.