!SASKATCHEWAN CANADA RESIDENTS PLEASE READ! *New Restrictions on Parrots*

[Summzz]

Hi everyone! First, I hope this would be the right area to post this, if not I'm sorry and can move it.
A few days ago I was notified that Saskatchewan was adding more restrictions on captive wildlife. On the division 2 list (list of animals that have to be owned before a certain date, then registered. You can no longer get a new parrot after that date if it's on the list) is a ton of commonly kept parrots. Division 2 animals are animals that don't pose an immediate risk but pose "potential risk" to our ecosystems and wildlife (which we all know here is not true). The list has very common parrots but also seems to only allow certain varieties but not others. It is completely absurd and we currently are trying to get a group together to stop it. They have tried this in other provinces but it was stopped after people got together to stop it. We can do that here but I want to let as many people know as possible. You can make sure which of your parrots are on or off the list, know if you'll have to register your parrot, and hopefully fight back so we can stop this going forward. A few people I know, including myself, have contacted our MLA and are planning on speaking with them to get help and be heard higher up. I will link the Facebook page that a great lady made, which has all the information and updates for everyone.

If you know anyone this would apply to, share it so they can be informed! It's an absolutely insane restriction and it should be changed.
Thank you everyone!

----> Facebook: Rally against parrot and reptile restrictions
----> Orginal List for Sask Residents: Restricted Species | Captive Wildlife in Saskatchewan | Government of Saskatchewan

 

[The_Mayor]

Maybe I'm misreading the form, but I just did a search and what I came up with was:

You have selected the following species:
All species of family Psittacidae (parrots budgies lories cockatoos macaws parakeet lorikeet) EXCEPT if listed as Restricted (All species except if listed as Restricted)

Species List:
Allowed

Requirements:
This species is listed as Allowed and may be kept as a pet or companion animal. You are not required to report this species to the ministry.

Can you provide a link to where the list of Restricted parrots is?

 

[Hankmacaw]

Some folks who get elected to office or hired into a bureaucracy, certainly do get badge heavy awfully fast. Instead of doing what we elected them to do - take care of roads, bridges, police and keep the parks clean, they all of a sudden tell how to live our lives and dream up a million things that we can't do.

 

[flyzipper]

Thanks for the post, I hadn't heard of this.

This is how the change would affect me (if I lived in Saskatchewan)...

	Species	Saskatchewan Classification	Conservation Status
Marvin​	Green Cheek Conure​	Allowed​	​
Jericho​	Severe Macaw​	Allowed​	​
Oscar​	Military Macaw​	Division 2​	​

The way the Saskatchewan list reads, unless otherwise noted, All species of family Psittacidae (parrots budgies lories cockatoos macaws parakeet lorikeet) EXCEPT if listed as Restricted (All species except if listed as Restricted) are in the Allowed classification.

The species that I see called out as Restricted include (among macaws): Hyacinth (vulnerable), Lears (endangered), Glaucous (critically endangered), Blue-Throated (critically endangered), Red-Fronted (critically endangered), Scarlett (least concern), Great Green (critically endangered), Military (vulnerable), Spix's (extinct in the wild), Blue-Winged (near threatened), and Blue-Headed (vulnerable).

So, ignoring the Scarlett's inclusion in that list (which is a head-scratcher), the rest are threatened or worse, so that appears to be how they're drawing the line.

I'll have to think about it a little more, but at first consideration I don't see a problem with them trying to keep an eye on the keeping of threated species as pets.

 

[The_Mayor]

The species that I see called out as Restricted include (among macaws): Hyacinth (vulnerable), Lears (endangered), Glaucous (critically endangered), Blue-Throated (critically endangered), Red-Fronted (critically endangered), Scarlett (least concern), Great Green (critically endangered), Military (vulnerable), Spix's (extinct in the wild), Blue-Winged (near threatened), and Blue-Headed (vulnerable).

Thanks for clarifying that - when I did a general search I wasn't able to find which ones were restricted - I think something about how the dropdown was showing on my browser.

But, yeah, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to have controls in place for species that are endangered as long as there's a way to register people's current pets.

At least that's how I see it based on my understanding that part of the reason some birds are becoming endangered is because wild birds are still being trapped for the pet trade. If that really isn't the case and those species would be dying out in the wild even in the absence of poachers, then I dunno. Maybe in that case the horse really has left the barn.

 

[redindiaink]

so that appears to be how they're drawing the line.

Psittacus erithacus (Congo grey) is endangered and listed as a division 2 bird, but psittacus timneh, which is also endangered, doesn't show up at all. I ran into the same issue (no information) with Senegals, Blue Fronted Amazons and Maximillion Pionus, all have Least Concern status.

I'm not sure what the point to this is. It's a bit like the absurdity when the city banned bird sales in Burnaby, but surrounding jurisdictions still allow them.

And, how exactly do they plan to police this?

 

[Summzz]

Thanks for the post, I hadn't heard of this.

This is how the change would affect me (if I lived in Saskatchewan)...

	Species	Saskatchewan Classification	Conservation Status
Marvin​	Green Cheek Conure​	Allowed​	View attachment 385104​
Jericho​	Severe Macaw​	Allowed​	View attachment 385105​
Oscar​	Military Macaw​	Division 2​	View attachment 385106​

The way the Saskatchewan list reads, unless otherwise noted, All species of family Psittacidae (parrots budgies lories cockatoos macaws parakeet lorikeet) EXCEPT if listed as Restricted (All species except if listed as Restricted) are in the Allowed classification.

The species that I see called out as Restricted include (among macaws): Hyacinth (vulnerable), Lears (endangered), Glaucous (critically endangered), Blue-Throated (critically endangered), Red-Fronted (critically endangered), Scarlett (least concern), Great Green (critically endangered), Military (vulnerable), Spix's (extinct in the wild), Blue-Winged (near threatened), and Blue-Headed (vulnerable).

So, ignoring the Scarlett's inclusion in that list (which is a head-scratcher), the rest are threatened or worse, so that appears to be how they're drawing the line.

I'll have to think about it a little more, but at first consideration I don't see a problem with them trying to keep an eye on the keeping of threated species as pets.

Thanks for clarifying that - when I did a general search I wasn't able to find which ones were restricted - I think something about how the dropdown was showing on my browser.

But, yeah, it doesn't strike me as unreasonable to have controls in place for species that are endangered as long as there's a way to register people's current pets.

At least that's how I see it based on my understanding that part of the reason some birds are becoming endangered is because wild birds are still being trapped for the pet trade. If that really isn't the case and those species would be dying out in the wild even in the absence of poachers, then I dunno. Maybe in that case the horse really has left the barn.

Yea, I think most of us are fine with if we had to register our pets (at least I see no problem with that). I think the main issue is that there are captive breeders and that doesn't seem to be in consideration. From what I've seen, most people also came to the conclusion it was for the threatened species (even though they did not say that was the reason they were on there). I'm someone who is against trapping wild animals for the pet trade but once again, I think most people have issues with that and it's just for the captive breeders. I know I was just getting ready to get a Hyacinth Macaw, from a breeder, and since the cut-off date was June 1st, I no longer can. If I could just register it, that would be fine. I was thankful none of the parrots were put on the Division 1 list which would have been either rehome them to another province, a licensed facility or euthanize the animal.

Just including some comments from others since I'm not the most knowledgeable about this situation.

" I understand wanting to limit pressures from the pet industry on these species, but again, the captive bred component is one that they don't seem to consider in these regulations."

" I suspect it is because this document comes from the wildlife branch that regulate wildlife rehabilitates and so they are very away of native species at risk - so it makes sense from their point of view but completely ignores the pet/captive bred aspect "

" agreed but the whole foundation of this change is to protect Saskatchewan wildlife and their Ecosystems. It is unethical to present one premise then muddy it with a seemingly different agenda all together. If the legislation were about supporting endangered species of the world that would feel more “honest”. "

" What is really lacking is the question: How Do Our Pets Endanger Native Wildlife and Their Ecosystems?? This is what this is all based on - protecting Saskatchewan wildlife. I would like to know how my African Grey threatens either of these things ?? "

 

[flyzipper]

Psittacus erithacus (Congo grey) is endangered and listed as a division 2 bird, but psittacus timneh, which is also endangered, doesn't show up at all. I ran into the same issue (no information) with Senegals, Blue Fronted Amazons and Maximillion Pionus, all have Least Concern status.

Timneh African Greys do appear to be an inconsistency in their omission from the Restricted list if conservation concerns are the trigger for inclusion there (as they state below)
.
From the Allowed List PDF...

The majority of members of the parrot family (according to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) are Allowed (e.g. cockatiels, parrots, budgies, lories, cockatoos, macaws, parakeet, lorikeet, etc.). However, due to conservation concerns, more than 50 species of Family Psittacidae are listed as Restricted: Division 2. Refer to the Restricted: Division 2 list for species that may only be kept for personal possession by notifying the ministry.​

Here's the Division 2 Restricted PDF (@The_Mayor ...you were curious about this).

I haven't come across enforcement plans at this point.

 

[The_Mayor]

Here's the Division 2 Restricted PDF (@The_Mayor ...you were curious about this).

Thanks, that is interesting.

One point that stands out to me. It says:

They may be held for the remaining life of the animal only if they were in a person’s possession prior to June 1, 2021, and if the ministry is notified by November 30, 2021.

My question is whether the animal has to remain in the same person's possession (not how I would read "a person") or whether the animal is permitted to be transferred from one person to another as long as someone had possession and registered the animal by the deadline. That is how I would read "a person" and if that's the case, you might as well stop reading here.

If it's the former, it seems important to reach out to the relevant lawmakers or appropriate regulatory body and explain the typical lifespan of some of these birds.

It may not be obvious or well known to them (since the scope of this is much larger than pet birds) that some of these birds might reasonably be expected to have lifespans that exceed that of their owners as of last Tuesday. A reasonable amendment seems to me to have the permit, as it were, for birds that were in existence as of June 1 to go with the bird, rather than the owner.

So, let's pretend that Steve and his crew lived in Saskatchewan and that he appropriately registered Oscar before the deadline. My suggestion would be to make the registration attach to Oscar (if it doesn't under the current language). That way, if Oscar did, for whatever reason, need to go live with someone else, that person would be able to say, "hey, here's Oscar. Here's all his registration paperwork, and I'm re-registering him in my name." With, obvious safeguards so people can only re-register birds they rightfully have possession of.

If the birds can be transferred as long as they were properly registered, then, subject to review of an attorney who knows something about Saskatchewan animal law or clarification by the regulatory agency, it would seem like Summer would be able to get her macaw as long as the breeder properly registered it.

If the animals can't be transferred, then I expect Saskatchewan is going to end up with a lot of undocumented avians.

That, to me, would seem like a serious, and I would hope, unintended consequence of this.

 

[flyzipper]

I didn't do a complete cross-reference, but it appears they're following the list maintained in Cites Appendix 1 (contains Scarlett, and lacks Timneh), not the IUCN Red List (which has the Scarlett as least concern, and Timneh as endangered).

 

[Kassiani]

So....breeders of listed birds cannot continue, but they could hold onto the adults and young they have at the moment? And you could never buy/adopt another amazon if you remained in Saskatchewan?

 

[Summzz]

Thanks, that is interesting.

One point that stands out to me. It says:

They may be held for the remaining life of the animal only if they were in a person’s possession prior to June 1, 2021, and if the ministry is notified by November 30, 2021.

My question is whether the animal has to remain in the same person's possession (not how I would read "a person") or whether the animal is permitted to be transferred from one person to another as long as someone had possession and registered the animal by the deadline. That is how I would read "a person" and if that's the case, you might as well stop reading here.

If it's the former, it seems important to reach out to the relevant lawmakers or appropriate regulatory body and explain the typical lifespan of some of these birds.

It may not be obvious or well known to them (since the scope of this is much larger than pet birds) that some of these birds might reasonably be expected to have lifespans that exceed that of their owners as of last Tuesday. A reasonable amendment seems to me to have the permit, as it were, for birds that were in existence as of June 1 to go with the bird, rather than the owner.

So, let's pretend that Steve and his crew lived in Saskatchewan and that he appropriately registered Oscar before the deadline. My suggestion would be to make the registration attach to Oscar (if it doesn't under the current language). That way, if Oscar did, for whatever reason, need to go live with someone else, that person would be able to say, "hey, here's Oscar. Here's all his registration paperwork, and I'm re-registering him in my name." With, obvious safeguards so people can only re-register birds they rightfully have possession of.

If the birds can be transferred as long as they were properly registered, then, subject to review of an attorney who knows something about Saskatchewan animal law or clarification by the regulatory agency, it would seem like Summer would be able to get her macaw as long as the breeder properly registered it.

If the animals can't be transferred, then I expect Saskatchewan is going to end up with a lot of undocumented avians.

That, to me, would seem like a serious, and I would hope, unintended consequence of this.

I had never even thought about that... I'll make sure to keep that in mind when I talk to my MLA. It definitely doesn't seem like that was a thought at all so I'm assuming they have no clue. I'm glad to see others talk about this, it helps to bring up more questions and information!

 

[Summzz]

So....breeders of listed birds cannot continue, but they could hold onto the adults and young they have at the moment? And you could never buy/adopt another amazon if you remained in Saskatchewan?

Yea, from our understanding even breeders cannot continue, and just keep the remaining birds they have that are on that list, as long as they register them of course. And yup, like mentioned I was just in the process of getting a Hyacinth Macaw but I no longer can because I didn't have it before June 1st (not to mention this wasn't brought up to us until June 3rd when someone shared what they had found on a Sask Gov site). I lived in Saskatchewan my whole life and had planned on staying where I'm at but I'm not sure now lol.

 

[Summzz]

Just found the answer about transferring ownership if anyone was wondering


" I talked to them about restricted reptiles with long life spans that are willed to family members. We are no longer allowed to purchase, trade, give, or otherwise acquire a restricted animal ... what happens when due to age or death we can no longer care for it? Fish and Wildlife wants to acknowledge that we have family pets that may outlive their owner, and may be inherited by an immediate family member (child, or grandchild), and we came up with a process to do that. The person who the animal resides with now needs to declare the animal and make a note of the chain of inheritance. You should declare the benefactor as a co-owner. Let's use Mr. T as an example. Elisa would declare Mr. T as hers, at her address. In the comments on the declaration form very clearly state "This animal may outlive the current owner. Provision has been made in my will for Mr. T to pass down to Josh and/or Anna (children of the owner), and I am declaring them to be co-owners of Mr. T. If Mr. T remains in Saskatchewan after my passing, Josh and/or Anna will submit an address and name change with SK Fish and Wildlife." The benefactor will need to have a copy of your will with this animal specifically named within. Make a plan and get those restricted animals with long lives into your will! Clearly state the benefactor’s relationship to you. Clearly acknowledge that person as a co-owner. "

It seems they at least thought about that.

 

[Sparkles99]

If they're trying to protect endangered species, I agree with it. However, it may not be the best way.

The best way to ensure a best seller is to ban the book. If blue & golds were rare & hyacinths were not, their respective prices would basically swap. They will drive the trade underground.

@flyzipper I didn't know CITES & IUCN weren't the same. That's interesting.

@redindiaink By banning bird sales, do you mean all bird sales, even canaries & budgies which, clearly, aren't endangered in the wild?!

Edited to add: Our own countries' native birds are heavily protected. We should help other countries, especially those that are poorer than ours, preserve their own natural history, not hinder them. Most people would be appalled if someone showed up here & declared they were taking bunches of cardinals back home.

 

[flyzipper]

when I talk to my MLA

You may want to include in your discussion that CITES has provisions to exempt Specimens of animal species bred in captivity (based on my reading of it... open to being corrected). They have additional resources on captive produced animals (here). If that's an accurate interpretation, the question to your MLA would be why Saskatchewan's rules don't appear to follow that provision.

I thought this was interesting context for the original CITES rules (before the resolution for captive bred animals was adopted)...

During the early years of the Convention (1975-1989), 96 per cent of animals in international trade were taken from the wild. Since then, there has been a significant change and, today, international trade in animals is mainly in specimens from captive-produced sources.​

 

[redindiaink]

@Sparkles99 Burnaby banned "retail pet sales", but I'm not sure if they used a broad definition, or if it was more specific. The example gets used a lot in discussions here over the absurdity of the animal protection laws we do have in place ie: Vancouver bird hoarder can move to another city close by and no longer be considered a hoarder. White Rock prohibits lovebirds while neighbouring Surrey allows them etc. A lot of it has to do with how activists are using the lowest level of governance available in our country rather than meaningful provincial or federal legislation.

 

[The_Mayor]

Just found the answer about transferring ownership if anyone was wondering


" I talked to them about restricted reptiles with long life spans that are willed to family members. We are no longer allowed to purchase, trade, give, or otherwise acquire a restricted animal ... what happens when due to age or death we can no longer care for it? Fish and Wildlife wants to acknowledge that we have family pets that may outlive their owner, and may be inherited by an immediate family member (child, or grandchild), and we came up with a process to do that. The person who the animal resides with now needs to declare the animal and make a note of the chain of inheritance. You should declare the benefactor as a co-owner. Let's use Mr. T as an example. Elisa would declare Mr. T as hers, at her address. In the comments on the declaration form very clearly state "This animal may outlive the current owner. Provision has been made in my will for Mr. T to pass down to Josh and/or Anna (children of the owner), and I am declaring them to be co-owners of Mr. T. If Mr. T remains in Saskatchewan after my passing, Josh and/or Anna will submit an address and name change with SK Fish and Wildlife." The benefactor will need to have a copy of your will with this animal specifically named within. Make a plan and get those restricted animals with long lives into your will! Clearly state the benefactor’s relationship to you. Clearly acknowledge that person as a co-owner. "

It seems they at least thought about that.

One, point of language in the section you quote. The person who has and will be passing on the bird is the benefactor (or testator in the case of a will). The person who receives the bird is the beneficiary. I know you didn't write it, but if you know the person who did, you might suggest they correct it.

Also, how many pet birds are rehomed (either because the owner died or couldn't take care of it for whatever reason) to an immediate family member? In addition, listing someone as a co-owner is potentially problematic. Hands up (not really) anybody who's been through a divorce where division of the assets was a point of contention.

At this point, I think anyone who currently has restricted birds and lives in the province I have to spell check every time I write it should probably at least make backup plans for those birds to get rehomed elsewhere if they can no longer care for the bird.

 

[Summzz]

One, point of language in the section you quote. The person who has and will be passing on the bird is the benefactor (or testator in the case of a will). The person who receives the bird is the beneficiary. I know you didn't write it, but if you know the person who did, you might suggest they correct it.

Also, how many pet birds are rehomed (either because the owner died or couldn't take care of it for whatever reason) to an immediate family member? In addition, listing someone as a co-owner is potentially problematic. Hands up (not really) anybody who's been through a divorce where division of the assets was a point of contention.

At this point, I think anyone who currently has restricted birds and lives in the province I have to spell check every time I write it should probably at least make backup plans for those birds to get rehomed elsewhere if they can no longer care for the bird.

Didn't even notice that, I don't know them personally but they were just a part of the Facebook group. And yea, not many are rehomed to a family member, which is another reason we don't like this idea. The one woman I was talking to was saying how each of her birds had a life plan, some to go to close friends that were also bird lovers, some back to people she got them from, etc. None would be her immediate family so know there is a problem. It also brings up the idea for rescued or birds for adopting. The way they make it sound (we had someone talking with fish and wildlife) they would just euthanize birds in that situation. The lady who was talking with Fish and Wildlife is making more questions to ask on Monday, one being that transfer of ownership thing. And yea, I have a tough time with co-ownership... I haven't had any current issues but have heard of some horror stories! Most are just preparing just in case as we know other provinces turn this over but that was BEFORE it was passed. Sask was sneaky and almost no one knew about it until it passed (June 2nd). I've even seen some news articles talking about it and a ton of people are mad as they had no idea. It is sure causing a shizz show I think they knew would happen, hence why they snuck it right under us!

 

[Birdie Mama]

@redindiaink

Burnaby banned "retail pet sales", but I'm not sure if they used a broad definition, or if it was more specific.

I had not heard of anything in BC - are you saying that no pet stores have birds anymore or just certain types of birds. We use to always go to one store in Burnaby when we still lived in the lower mainland, (mostly for supplies for our reef tank, my husband showed them how to set them up 40 years ago,) but they had beautiful birds, and parrots that would say ‘hello’ in a Korean accent as grandma looked after the birds and talked to them constantly. Will be heading down to the coast in the fall and was hoping to stop in to the store to pick up supplies for Bailey…

wonder if Petsmart are allowed to have them still…if they don’t carry birds, they may not carry supplies or very little, like Bosleys pet supply, making it harder to find what we need. Can’t even get decent millet unless I go to bicker fields, and then it’s .60 a stick though they are big but still…(we were able to pick them up at that store in boxes of 25 lb.), at buckerfields, I can still get good quality there and worth the money but worrisome for certain bird supplies.