Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

Final Report
Claudia Macias-Caballero, Jos Jaime Gonzlez-Elizondo,
Ernesto C. Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Alberto Pars-Garca

Presented to: Defenders of Wildlife

Monterrey Tech, Centro de Calidad Ambiental
CEDES 5 piso. Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501
Monterrey, N.L. 64849 MEXICO
Tel 011-52- (8) 358 2000, 358 1400 ext 5267, 5268
Fax 011- 52- (8) 359 6280
cmacias@itesm.mx, enkerlin@itesm.mx
Monterrey, N.L. Mexico February, 2003

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In the year 2000, Fundacion ARA, a non-governmental agency devoted to the rehabilitation, protection
and conservation of Mexican endangered birds, ended operations for a variety of reasons. A committee
was created to determine the best destination for the parrots Fundacion ARA held in captivity. This
committee, made up of Mexican Ornithologists, Federal Government representatives, and members of
the Subcommittee for the Management and Conservation of Mexican Psittacines, decided that 21
Yellow-headed Parrots and 16 Red-crowed Parrots should be released into the wild.
The committee selected our group at Monterrey Tech to be responsible for the release. We had been
doing field research on both species for more than 8 years and had the knowledge and experience
needed to carry out such a release process. We considered this task essential to the successful
reintroduction of these two species into areas from which they have been extirpated. Both of the
species are endangered and the wild populations have seriously declined due to habitat loss and capture
for the bird trade. This reintroduction represented an opportunity to fulfill the primary goals of
Fundacion ARA: the rehabilitation and conservation of Mexican endangered parrots, and the
successful soft release of an endangered species into its native habitat.
With the exception of seven captive born Yellow-headed Parrots, the remaining 14 birds had been
illegally caught (by poachers) in the Mexican territory. These birds were immediately confiscated by
the government and maintained in localities near their original range.
In order to ensure an appropriate and successful release, we carefully considered the main risks
involved in this kind of project (Snyder et. al 2000, Sanz and Grajal 1998, IUCN 1998):
1) Disease contamination
2) Unintended ecological effects
3) Cultural/genetic pollution of wild populations

1) To avoid disease contamination

Even when the birds were held under strict hygienic conditions on Fundacion ARA, we wanted to
minimize the risk of disease contamination as much as possible. A special committee was created to
undertake a health evaluation of the parrots. The committee was formed by Dr. Alberto Pars from
Africam Safari (Mxico), DVM, Dr. Elizabeth Stone from the Maine Bureau of Health (US), DVM,
Dr. Nadine Lamberski from San Diego Wild Animal Park (US), Dr. Branson Ritchie from the
Infectious Diseases Laboratory and the Emerging Diseases Research Group at the University of
Georgia (US), DVM, PhD, and Dr. Ciembor also from the Infectious Diseases Laboratory (US). These
committee members are established researchers experienced with the psittacine diseases affecting both
wild and captive populations.
After thoughtful discussion, a pre-release health evaluation of the birds was considered of primary
importance to reduce the risk of inadvertently introducing known infectious agents into the indigenous
population (Brand 1989, Lamberski 1996). Understanding the inability to define a group of birds as
100% pathogen free, it was decided to implement a strict quarantine regime and a reasonable health
screening program for significant and detectable pathogens known to be present in Amazona species.
There are other important infectious diseases of psittacine birds for which there are no reliable
diagnostic tests (such as Proventricular Dilitation Syndrome and mycobacteriosis). Obviously, the

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

birds to be released could not be reliably tested for these pathogens. Ancillary testing was done to
ascertain the overall health of the birds at the time of release.

2) To avoid unintended ecological effects

Unintended ecological effects are a special concern when releases are attempted outside the historical
range, as this situation leads to the species being placed in an environment where it has not evolved
any adaptation to deal with it (Snyder et al. 2000).
To avoid this risk we decided to do the release within the historical range of both species. Although
both species had been extirpated locally, there was still enough suitable habitat. This could greatly
increase the species survivability by increasing the number and geographic distribution of their
populations (Wiley et al. 1992).

3) To avoid cultural/genetic pollution of wild populations

When captive-bred stocks are used for reintroductions, they may introduce genetic and cultural traits
which have evolved in captivity.
We considered the two flocks of parrots from Fundacion ARA appropriate for release into the wild as
the origin and geographic source of the parrots were well known. The parrots were confiscated in
northeast Mexico and were taken directly to Fundacion ARA. All birds have remained in this location
during rehabilitation and have been housed in separate enclosures.
The birds were not exposed to other avian species or exotic parrots; therefore, the risks of mimicking
abnormal behavior or of interbreeding were minimal. Two pairs of the confiscated Yellow-headed
Parrots were captive-held. One pair successfully bred for2 consecutive years, and produced 2 chicks in
1998 and 2 in 1999. The second pair also bred on 1998 and produced 3 chicks. All chicks were parentreared and remained with the parents for an extended period of time. These seven juveniles were part
of the release flock.

PROCEDURE FOR RELEASING THE PARROTS

We performed a soft release procedure, following the recommendations provided by the Association
for Parrot Conservation (Snyder et al. 2000), the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN 1998), as well as Wiley et al. (1992).
The release procedure was basically divided in three aspects:
1) Pre-conditioning birds for release
2) Releasing considerations
3) Post-release monitoring

1) Pre-conditioning birds for release

The 37 birds were moved from the rehabilitation center Fundacion ARA, to the release site on January
2001, located in the original distribution range for both species, where they began a strict 8-month
(January-September 2001) quarantine and pre-conditioning period. Parrots were held in flight cages
measuring 1.50 x 1.50 x 10 m, which allowed reasonable flight exercise. Two flight cages were set up,

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

one for each species of parrots. The cages were held about 2 meters from the ground level, aided by
ropes and pulleys tied to the nearby trees.
We set up three perches on each side of the cage and coerced the birds to fly from one side to the other
for5 minutes twice a day between January and May 2001. After this time the birds exercised on their
own without any difficulty.
The birds were simultaneously conditioned to eat local food prior to release. During their first two
weeks at the release site, they were provided with the same diet offered while in captivity. This diet
consisted of sunflower seeds, peanuts, carrots, apples, tamarinds, peppers, corn and water with
vitamins. After two weeks, the birds were gradually conditioned to eat locally-available food items.
These items were identified from the previous diet studies our group conducted on both species in the
wild (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Hogan 1997, Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1997, Gonzlez-Elizondo 1998).
Preferred food items included ebony (Phitecellobium ebano), strangler fig (Ficus cotinifolia), coma
(Bumelia laetevirens), and mala mujer (Cnidoscolus sp). As expected, some birds were reluctant to
eat the wild food and took more time to transition to the native diet. After 6 months of training all the
birds were successfully converted to a natural diet consisting of wild seeds and native fruits.
During the 8 months of acclimation, the birds were held away (200m) from people and domestic
animals. Only the technician in charge of providing food and training the parrots was able to enter the
training site. The birds were exposed to natural predators such as raptors and mammals, as well as to
other native birds occurring in the region. This period of time allowed for the integration of the parrots
into a flock. The Red-crowned Parrots appeared to be more integrated as a single flock, since these
birds were held in a single cage while in captivity. The Yellow-headed Parrots showed certain
aggregation but preferred to gather in smaller groups.

2) Releasing considerations
We addressed several considerations for the release of the two flocks of parrots involved in this project.
The main one was the identification of a proper release site. Based on the information from Fundacion
ARA we knew that the birds had been confiscated on northeast of Mexico. We considered releasing
these birds in the same region to be important in ensuring a high probability of survival. Additionally,
our group was familiar with this region and had a broad knowledge and experience with the wild
parrots. Northeast Mexico is the only region where the Red-crowned Parrot occurs. It is also the native
habitat for the subspecies of Yellow-headed Parrot involved.
We evaluate several potential release sites for size of suitable habitat available, fragmentation degree,
presence/absence of native red-crowned or Yellow-headed Parrots, and for the presence of local
community members willing to get involved in the protection of the birds. The site selected is a private
property (cattle ranch) in Veracruz State. The owner (Jose Jaime Gonzalez) became involved in the
project and participated in the entire process. Mr. Gonzalez is a very experienced parrot researcher in
Mexico and has studied both species in the wild. He has been part of Monterrey Tech research group
for approximately 10 years and was charged with monitoring every stage of the release project in situ.
The selected release site has about 1,000 has of pasture and secondary growth vegetation, plus 1,000
has of secondary forest with enough arboreal coverage for parrot food and nesting sites. It has been
documented that both species of parrots use disturbed habitat mosaics in which profit-making cattle
ranches are the main activity. However, tree cover is important in this habitat for maintaining shelter,
nest sites and food resources for parrots (Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Packard 1993, Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995,
Enkerlin-Hoeflich et al. 1997).
4

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

Yellow-headed Parrots have not been reported in this release area for several years. Reports exist for
the Red-crowned Parrots and this species is known to visit the area during certain times of the year.
Timing of release was another aspect of special concern. Season of release is important in assuring a
high probability of survival and good integration into wild flocks (Wiley et al. 1992). We set up a
target release date from the last week of August through the last week of September. This was based on
the behavior of both species in the wild. Late summer and early fall is an appropriate time for
introducing new parrot individuals to the wild in this region, since breeding season is ending and
recruitment of new individuals is occurring. This is the time of the year when the wild birds usually
join in flocks and move together. Based on parrot records for this release site, this characteristic
behavior may enhance the adaptation of released parrots to their natural habitat, especially Redcrowned Parrots, since there is a higher probability of joining the wild parrots.
We performed the release of 21 Yellow-headed Parrots and 14 Red-crowned Parrots on September
11th, 2001. The birds were fasted the day prior to release in order to be able to coax them outside the
enclosure door on the day of release using food. The release was performed at 10:00 AM on a sunny
day (about 26C). We offered some sunflowers on the ground outside of the main door and most of the
birds were immediately attracted to the food. It took approximately 2 hours for all the birds to exit the
enclosure, except for one Yellow-headed Parrot that finally exited after 4 hours.
Prior to the release, we visited the neighborhood in order to inform the local people about the project,
talk about the importance of the parrots and their protection, and invite them to get involved in the
project by protecting and monitoring the birds. All the neighbors were interested in the project and
expressed their commitment on protecting the parrots. We also contacted the authorities of local
government and invited them to participate in the project and collaborate with the media. In
conjunction with government officials, the Local radio stations announced the project and the
importance of preserving the parrots.
On the day of release, the corresponding authorities witnessed the release procedure, as did the
landowners, local neighbors, and volunteer students. The students were also responsible for videotaping and photographing the produce for documentation.

3) Post-release monitoring
In order to document the success of the release, we radio-collared 4 of the 14 Red-crowned and 6 of the
21 Yellow-headed Parrots one week prior to release. All birds were previously banded with open
aluminum bands from Fundacion ARA and closed aluminum orange bands from Monterrey Tech.
We used two different types of radio-transmitters. The Red-crowned Parrots were radio-collared with a
whip antenna radio transmitter from Wildlife Materials, Inc. with 13gr weight (less than 3 to 5% of the
parrot body mass). The Yellow-headed Parrots were radio-collared with a loop antenna radio
transmitter from Holohil (AI-2C), with 21gr weight (less than 3-5% of the parrot body mass). Both
types of radio transmitters had a battery life of 12 months.
We tracked the birds using telemetry equipment from Wildlife Materials, Inc. from September 2001 to
August 2002. This is a very important part of a release project. Monitoring the birds allowed us to
follow up the parrot movements and document their behavior.

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

MAIN FINDINGS
Disease evaluation
The 8 months period of training and acclimatization in flight cages allowed considerable rehabilitation
and flight exercise for the parrots.
On February 2001 a strong storm occurred in the release area. The wind caused one of the cages to fall
and strike one of its sides against the ground. Two Red-crowned Parrots were traumatized and
unfortunately died. A necropsy performed in a laboratory some days later confirmed the cause of death
as trauma.
During the quarantine period, each bird received a complete physical exam under general anesthesia
(Isoflurane) and samples were obtained to perform the following tests: Complete blood count, fecal
exam (flotation method), cloacal culture, choanal culture, avian influenza (hemagglutination inhibition
test), avian polyomavirus (DNA detection assay and virus neutralizing antibody testing), psittacine
circovirus (DNA detection assay), Newcastle disease virus (hemagglutination inhibition test),
Pachecos disease virus (DNA detection assay and virus neutralizing antibody testing) and
Chlamydophila spp. (DNA detection assays and indirect fluorescent antibody testing). All birds were
weighed four times during the quarantine and pre-conditioning period (at days 1, 90, 180 and 210).
All pathogen assays were negative except for three Yellow-headed Parrots with Chlamydophila spp
antibody titers of 1:5 and one Red-crowned Parrot whit a Chlamydophila spp antibody titer of 1:25. All
birds were serologically negative when subsequent samples were tested three weeks later suggesting
the titers were not indicative of active infection (Cray 1998).
Physical exam revealed feather damage attributed to handling and the enclosure design, resolved
fractures in 2 birds, and obesity in 21 birds. The normal weight for the Yellow-headed Parrots is 450 g
and 316 g for the Red-crowned Parrots (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995, Enkerlin-Hoeflich and Hogan 1997,
Gonzlez-Elizondo 1998).
Staphylococcus spp, Sreptococcus spp and Escherichia coli were cultured from cloacal swabs (from 3,
1 and 1 birds respectively), and Staphylococcus spp, Streptococcus spp were cultured from choanal
swabs (from 19 and 17 birds respectively). Salmonella spp. was not cultured from any of the 37 birds.
Fecal flotation exams were negative for all birds.
The hemogram revealed three Red-crowned Parrots had a slight eosinophilia (3%) and one Yellowheaded Parrot had mild anemia (HTC 33%, HGB 11gm/dl). The latter bird experienced a marked
weight loss during the first two months of quarantine but regained more than 5 % of its initial weight
by the end of the quarantine period.
Although weight is a sensitive indicator of disease (Pars 1996), the birds in this study generally lost
weight during the first months of quarantine. Twenty-one birds (56%) regained or increased their body
weight by the end of the preconditioning quarantine period. The weight loss was attributed to the
change in diet and increased physical activity. Because the captive birds had been maintained on an
unnatural diet without flight exercise, most birds were considered overweight with inherent
cardiovascular and muscular compromise prior to the preconditioning quarantine period (Bush et al.
1993).

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

The health evaluations performed on the birds were considered sufficient for reintroduction of native
birds that had never been removed from their country of origin. Based on the results of the diagnostic
tests, all birds were released at the end of the conditioning period. While the released birds were not
considered pathogen-free, the birds did remain clinically stable during their quarantine and evaluation
period. It is of interest that many pathogen-associated diseases are considered secondary to stresses
associated with captivity including overcrowding, poor air quality, unnatural diets and lack of exercise
(Brand 1989, Bush et al. 1993).
The inability to adequately test for all infectious diseases known to be present in Amazona species, and
the insufficient information available on naturally-occurring diseases in free-ranging parrots is
challenging for reintroduction programs.

Feeding, flying and socializing

At the end of the training period (August 2001), all the birds were successfully feeding on wild fruits.
The birds were provided sunflowers on the day of release in order to entice them to leave the
enclosures. Most of the birds left the training cage immediately, while some other were more reluctant.
Once the birds were out of the enclosure, they fed a little and then began flying among the nearby trees.
Some of them were able to fly to the canopy level of the forest showing great agility, while others flew
slowly and clumsily only a few meters above the ground.
We provided supplemental food and water until the birds were fully competent in the wild (up to 6
months). Some birds began foraging for their own food and feeding on native fruits the same day of the
release while others were still dependent on the food provided for several (?) months.
There was a distinct difference between the behavior of the two species of released parrots. The Redcrowned Parrots easily joined in flocks and moved together. They also quickly moved longer distances
from the release site until they left the area (see next section).
The Yellow-headed Parrots formed pairs or small groups (3 to 4 parrots) on the day of release and
remained in these small groups most of the time. Most of them moved only a few kilometers around
the release site and came back to the release site for roosting every evening.

Movements of the 21 Yellow-headed Parrots

Day of release. 1 parrot flew away about 2 km just a few hours after being released. The bird spent the
night alone. We lost sight of the bird after the second day. Unfortunately this bird was one of the
parrots that were not radio-collared, so we do not know if the bird moved a longer distance or was
predated/trapped. No sign after 12 months of monitoring.
1 month later. 20 parrots remained within 1km of the release site then started moving longer distances
(3-4 km around the release site). Most of the parrots came back to the release site for roosting and/or
food. 2 birds seemed to be tame. They had a lack of fear of humans and approached the researcher
when he arrived with food.
3 months later. 2 parrots were predated, presumably by a mammal. The others were moving within 5
km of the release site and come back to roost at night. The tame birds were still approaching the
researcher.

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

5 months later. We were still able to track the 6 radio-collared parrots and counted a population of 18
individuals. The tame birds still needed to be fed at the release site.
6 months later. The parrots moved in small flocks of two or three birds, but remained within 5 km of
the release site. Some of them changed their roosting place. Tame birds were now only sporadically
visiting the release site to look for food.
7 months later. Most of the birds were observed feeding on wild seeds different from those offered
during the feeding trial. 2 pairs were displaying nesting behavior.
9 months later. 2 pairs were observed nesting near the release site. The tame birds were no longer
approaching people but still showed a strong fondness for the home enclosure and release site. One
adult parrot was found dead near the release site. The cause could not be determined.
10 months later. One of the nesting pairs was poached, and adults and chicks were stolen. One of these
adults was radio-collared but we have not been able to track any signal from the radio.
The second nesting pair was no longer exhibiting nesting activity. They apparently were only
exhibiting nesting behavior but did not actually breed.
11 months later. One bird could not be located, and unfortunately, this bird was not radio-collared. 14
parrots still remained within 5km of the release site.
12 months later. 14 parrots were still observed within 5km of the release area. Most radio transmitter
batteries had expired by this point and only 2 were still functional. The tame birds were still staying
within1 km of the release site. These birds will probably be re-captured in the following months.

Movements of the 14 Red-crowned Parrots

Day of release. All the parrots were moving together as a single flock. They spent the night at the
release site.
1 month later. All the parrots remained within 1km of the release site.
2 months later. A wild flock of Red-crowned Parrots passed by the area and some of the released Redcrowned Parrots (9 birds) joined them and apparently moved together with the wild flock for about 8
km around the release site.
3 months later. Another small flock of wild Red-crowned Parrots passed by and 4 released parrots
joined them and moved 6 km from the release site. The first flock continues moving 8 km from the
release site. One lonely released parrot remained at the release site. This bird appeared to be tame. It
would land on people's shoulders and heads and would approach the release enclosure looking for food
every time a person was near. We decided to re-capture this bird before it was trapped or poached.
4-9 months later. No sign from the parrots that moved with the wild flocks. We looked for them and
tried to track them 60 km around the release site but there was no sign of the birds. They may have
moved more than 60km from the release site. Another possibility is that the radio transmitters were no
longer working. We have observed other Red-crowned Parrot flocks in the region but we were not able
to verify whether these birds were banded or were from the released flock.

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

10 months later. A small flock of 6 parrots arrived at the release site. There was no sign of radiocollared birds. Several days later we found out that the birds were banded were part of the released
flock. One of the birds was radio-collared but we were unable to get a signal from it. Apparently the
transmitters had stopped working.
11 months later. The flock was still at the release site. The radio transmitter was still not working.
12 months later. The flock moved again and it was not possible to track them.

Main considerations
Tracking the birds allowed us to document the movements of the released parrots. However the
transmitters on the Red-crowned Parrots only worked for three months. These transmitters had been
stored for a long period of time prior to being used (about a year), and this may have decreased the life
of the battery. The transmitters used on the Yellow-headed Parrots were acquired recently and stored
for only a few months prior to the release. The inability to track the Red-crowned Parrots prevented us
from documenting the specific movements of these birds.
However, we did identify a clear difference in the dispersion of the two species of parrots. Two flocks
of Red-crowned Parrots were formed after 4 weeks of being released. Both flock were apparently
stimulated by wild flocks of Red-crowned Parrots passing over the area. They joined these flocks and
left the release site. Only one of the released flocks returned to the release site but left the area after
several days.
The Yellow-headed Parrots formed small flocks of 2 to 4 birds and moved together around the release
site. They basically remained around the release site and use this location as a roosting site for an
extended period of time.
Both species behavior was expected. Our studies of wild parrots have documented the nomadic
behavior and long distance migration of the Red-crowned Parrots as well as the characteristic small
flocking behavior of the Yellow-headed Parrots (Enkerlin-Hoeflich 1995, Enkerlin-Hoeflich and
Hogan 1997). The Red-crowned Parrots may have been instinctively inclined to long-distance homing
behavior so did not remain in the release area.
An interesting observation made post-release was the parrots ability to defend itself from predators,
especially raptors. When a raptor approached the parrots they behaved similar to the wild parrots. The
released birds joined in flocks, gave an alarm call, and chased the raptor away. Mammals may have
predated some of the Yellow-headed parrots and this was an anticipated cause of mortality for the
released birds.
We found that, in general, the Red-crowned Parrots were more wild or rustic, except for one tame
individual. Most of the Yellow-headed Parrots demonstrated a strong fondness for the training
enclosure and the release site. Several of them seemed to be accustomed to the supplemental feeding as
well as to human presence. Two parrots were especially tame and would land on peoples heads and
shoulders. These juvenile were hatched in captivity to wild-born parents.
Most individuals from both species were held in captivity for at least 5 years, although some of them
may have been held in captivity for a longer period of time (health and nutritional records were not
available from Fundacion ARA). This length of time may be too long for parrots intended for release
as they may have become too accustomed to humans, captive diets, and facilities. Most of the Yellowheaded Parrots became more agile and less tame after several months. Even the 2 tame parrots seemed
to improve their foraging ability, socialize and displace after almost a year of post-release monitoring.

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

The fact that the Red-crowned Parrots were held in captivity in a single cage may have facilitated their
instinctive flocking behavior.
One of the most rewarding findings was the nesting attempt that the two existing pairs of Yellowheaded Parrots near the release site. One of them actually raised two chicks, but unfortunately, these
chicks together with their parents were poached. This strongly supports that a release program should
be linked to a long-term educational program with the local people in order to reduce one cause of the
parrots extirpation, illegal capture. Since it is on private property, the release site should have been
secure and protected. However it is now clear that if poaching is not controlled, the release process will
not help the wild populations of parrots.

General remarks and recommendations

Reintroduction is currently a controversial issue when referring to the protection and conservation of
parrots. This is due to the numerous risks involved and the failure of similar projects in the past. Our
group decided to get involved in this project because we considered it a very valuable learning
opportunity. By carefully evaluating and documenting this release strategy as well as the results,
others would have access to this information when planning similar efforts in the future.
This objective was accepted as appropriate by several organizations as well as those involved in the
project and resulted in the support and funds needed for the release process. This included such things
as parrot training and acclimation, cage and telemetry materials, laboratory analyses, and twelve
months of post-release follow up.
The primary motivation for releasing these particular species of parrots was that these parrots are
endangered. Wild populations have seriously declined in their original distribution range. Another
reason was that the origin and handling of the birds were well known, and the birds were not exposed
to exotic birds/diseases. Additionally, the birds were held under strict hygienic and security conditions
at Fundacion ARA. Finally, our group had the knowledge and experience of studying both parrot
species in the wild. This expertise was useful in increasing the chance of survival of the parrots to be
released.
Based on the results of this parrot release, we conclude that using a soft release procedure was crucial
to the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of at least 50% of the parrots. We recommend a soft
release procedure when reintroducing confiscated endangered parrots into the wild. However, it is very
important to consider the factors leading to the success or failure of the project. In order to increase the
success of reintroducing confiscated parrots, the following issues should be considered:
(1)

The origin (geographic source) of the parrots must be well known.

(2)

Handling and movements of confiscated parrots must be well known.

(3)

The parrots must be kept in quarantine and rehabilitated under strict hygienic conditions.
Parrots should have minimal contact with humans and no contact at all with other bird
species as well as wild or domestic animals.

(4)

It is essential to keep written documentation of the nutritional status and overall health of
the birds (studbook).

(5)

It is recommended that the birds spend as little time in captivity as possible. Obviously this
amount must be determined on a case by case basis. In general, we recommend a

10

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

maximum of three years in captivity in order to minimize imprinting and alteration of wild
behavior.
(6)

Parrots must be trained and conditioned in flight cages prior to release (soft release
procedure). The cages should be set up at the release site where the birds will spend the
time needed in order to be able to fly, socialize and feed on wild food.

(7)

Prior to release, the parrots must undergo a strict quarantine regime and a reasonable
health-screening program for pathogens known to be present in the species. For Amazona
species we recommend the protocol used in this project as a basic protocol.

(8)

To identify a suitable release site, it is important to evaluate the habitat and have a general
knowledge about other parrot species present in the area.

(9)

Release timing is also an issue that should be carefully considered. This should be based
on the particular species biology/behavior.

(10)

It is very important to link the parrot release procedure with educational campaigns and
propaganda about their importance and protection. Local people should get involved in the
project prior to, during, and post release.

(11)

It is also crucial to conduct post-release monitoring of the birds in order to document the
results and final disposition of the released birds.

Relevance of the project

One of the main project objectives was to demonstrate that reintroducing confiscated parrots back into
the wild is not easy. It is a challenging and difficult task to ensure that the released birds really
represent a benefit for the conservation of their wild populations and that they do not cause potential
and irretrievable damage to their own species and/or other wildlife species.
Due to the potential risks a release program poses to the wild populations as outlined at the beginning
of this report, the program demands a methodical and careful protocol. The participation of
experienced professionals from several disciplines is essential for the programs success.
The entire project from rehabilitation to post-release monitoring is a time consuming and a very
expensive process. It requires a dedicated group of researchers and long-term financial support. If these
resources are not available, those limited human, time and financial resources can be directed towards
in-situ conservation actions. It is important to remember that other strategies for the management and
conservation of confiscated birds have been proposed and releasing is not the only one or the most
appropriate one for all species (see Snyder et al. 2000). When implementing a release strategy, it is
fundamental to reduce the risks involved and to keep the focus on the potential benefits that the
released flock will bring to the wild populations.
We hope that the failures and successes documented in this project will offer some guidelines for
future efforts. Other strategies exist for the protection and conservation of parrots and every case
deserves carefully consideration.

11

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

REFERENCES
Brand, C.J. 1989. Chlamydial infections in free-living birds. JAVMA. 195:1531-1535.
Bush, M., B. Beck, R. Montali. 1993. Medical considerations of reintroduction. In: M.E. Fowler
(Ed.) Zoo & Wild Aimal Medicine, Current Therapy 3, Philadelphia, PA: WB. Saunders
1993: 24-26.
Cray, C., I. Zielezienski-Roberts. 1998. Clinical comparison of chlamydiosis diagnostic tests. Proc
Annu Conf Assoc Avian Vet. 1998: 93-95.
Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. C. 1995. Comparative ecology and reproductive biology of Amazona
parrots in Northestern Mexico. Ph. D. Dissertation Texas A&M University, College
Station, Texas.
Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. C. y J. M. Packard. 1993. Ecology, reproduction and human impacts: A
threatened Mexican endemic parrot (Amazona viridigenalis) and congeneric sympatrics.
Final Report to World Wildlife Fund-US, Washington, D. C.
Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E. C. y K. M. Hogan. 1997. Red crowned Parrot (Amazona viridigenalis). In
The Birds of North America, No. 292 (A. Poole y F. Gill. (Eds.). The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists Union,
Washington, D.C.
Enkerlin-Hoeflich, E.C., J.J. Gonzlez-Elizondo, M.T. Lpez de Lara, J.L. Manzano-Loza y C.M.
Macas-Caballero. 1997. Ecologa y Conservacin de loros Amazona en el Noreste de
Mxico. Reporte final Proy B115 presentado a CONABIO.
IUCN. 1998. IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Reintroductions
Specialist
Group.
IUCN
Gland
Switzerland
and
Cambridge,
UK.
(http://iucn.org./themes/ssc/PUBS/POLICY/INDEX.HTM).
Lamberski, N. 1996. Species survival plan health assessment of captive Thick-billed Parrots
Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha in the United States. Proc Am Asoc Zoo Vet. 1996:117-125.
Pars, A. 1996. Manejo de cuarentena en zoolgicos. Proc Annu Conf AZCARM. 1996;15.
Sanz, V., A. Grajal. 1998. Successful reintroduction of captive-raised yellow-shouldered Amazon
parrots on Margarita Island, Venezuela. Cons Biol. 12: 430-441.
Snyder, N.F.R., P. McGowan, J. Gilardi, A. Grajal. (Eds.) 2000. Parrots. Status Survey and
Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.
Wiley, J.W., N.F.R. Snyder and R.S. Gnam. 1992. Reintroduction as a Conservation Strategy for
Parrots. Pp. 165-200. In: S.R. Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder (Eds.). New World Parrots
in Crisis.

12

Amazona Parrot Release in Northeast Mexico

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of people were involved during several stages of this project. We thank all of them for their
interest and collaboration, especially for their commitment to parrot conservation.
We are extremely grateful to the generous support provided by the World Parrot Trust, Defenders of
Wildlife, Wildlife Conservation Society and Centro de Calidad Ambiental, Tecnolgico de Monterrey.
Africam Safari, Infectious Diseases Laboratory from University of Georgia, as well as the Comisin
Mxico-Estados Unidos para la prevencin de la fiebre aftosa y otras enfermedades exticas de los
animals, and Diagnsticos Clnicos Veterinarios, S.A. de C.V. kindly performed the laboratory tests for
the parrots at no cost.
We are also very grateful to the collaborators and colleagues involved in the project. All of them
participated voluntarily and willingly provided their knowledge, expertise and time: Elizabeth Stone,
Nadine Lamberski, Branson Ritchie, D. Ciembor, Pat Schroder, Jos Luis Manzano, Romualdo
Martnez, Cynthia Carlisle, Eduardo Iigo, Juan Vargas, Catalina Porras, Mnica Leal.
We thank to Fundacion ARA, PROFEPA, SEMARNAT and DGVS-SEMARNAT for their
collaboration and for facilitating the legal and logistic procedures for the parrot release.
Nadine Lamberski kindly did a review and proofreading of the present report.
Finally, we want to specially thank to the local people involved in the protection and monitoring of the
released parrots.

13