Western conservation groups are seeking stricter laws to deal with trade in endangered wildlife, but Dr. Paul Jepson warns that this isn’t the best solution. He highlights the case of the Bali starling (八哥). Bringing in tougher laws created unexpected outcomes, which contributed to the bird’s extinction in the wild in 2006.

He said that the traditional law enforcement (执行) approach that outlawed (宣布……非法) ownership of the Bali starling in the 1980s and 1990s increased rather than reduced the demand for wild-caught Bali starlings. The bird has become a popular gift among the rich of Indonesia, who can gain more status by owning one.

Instead, a case-by-case analysis might be needed. Last year, he said, a bird association set up a network of breeders (饲养者) among the owners of Bali starling on the island of Java. By introducing a “crowd-breeding” model, it transformed the bird into a species whose price and source of supply were publicly known. This lessened the status of keeping such birds and thereby reduced their profitability to black market suppliers.

Another case was on Nusa Penida, an island southeast of Bali. A Balinese conservation group planned to release starlings on the island. Critics tried to block the plan, saying the island was outside the birds’ native zone. Eventually, the Governor of Bali came up with a proposal. The starlings were given to a local temple as a ceremonial offering before they were released. This gave the Bali starling status as a “sacred bird”, giving them protection under customary laws. Now the released starlings established a breeding population on Nusa Penida.

Dr. Jepson commented, “I do not want to criticize the international approach seeking tighter law enforcement, but this case study shows we should not oversimplify how we respond to the problem of the wildlife trade. There is a growing body of evidence that shows more different approaches are sometimes needed to fit with the local social and political realities. We should tailor solutions on more of a case-by-case basis.”

Sara Savick remembers one special Easter when she was nine years old. Her parents gave her a baby duckling in a yellow basket.

“Mom said later that she bought the little duck because she felt sorry for it,” recalled Sara. The people at the pet store colored the feathers pink for Easter. Sara named the duck Pinky.

Sara’s mother really didn’t think the baby duck would survive very long. But to her surprise, Pinky grew and got stronger and stronger. Soon, the little duckling was a healthy, hungry duck with white feathers.

“We fed Pinky oatmeal, cooked and uncooked, and small pieces of vegetables,” said Sara. Pinky lived inside the house with Sara and her family. She specially fancied taking baths with Sara. Everyone treated Pinky as a family member.

But just when everything appeared to be perfect, the night of the “talk” came. Sara’s Mom and Dad sat her down, explaining that the best thing for Pinky was to live a normal duck life, with other ducks. It was not natural for ducks to live indoors with a family, her father told her. He added Pinky needed to swim in ponds and do all the same things that ducks in the wild do.

Sara started to cry, knowing what was going to happen. Sara’s parents decided to take Pinky to a park, which was two miles away. There was a pond with a lot of other ducks. Pinky would have the chance to live a natural life and Sara could still visit her.

The big day came, Sara and her parents put Pinky in a box and drove to the park. Sara said that Pinky did not look happy; maybe Pinky was convinced that she was a human, not a duck.

Everyone was sad when they left Pinky at the pond, even Sara’s father.

The next morning, when looking out of the kitchen window, Sara couldn’t believe her eyes!