so, although the problem of disease transfer may be getting worse (e.g. Jackson et al., , Emu, , ‒), the World Parrot Trust recently outlined its ‘release to restore’ plans for several species, sometimes to free confiscated wildcaught parrots in areas from which the species in question have disappeared, but sometimes to release birds that are expected eventually to unite with their wild counterparts. An example is the proposed release of six Critically Endangered blue-throated macaws Ara glaucogularis into the species’ only known area in Beni, Bolivia. World Parrot Trust’s PsittaScene (May , ‒) argues that, because so few wild birds remain, the release will constitute a reintroduction, not a reinforcement (sensu IUCN/SSC, , Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations, v. .), because ‘contact with any wild bird is unlikely to occur soon after release’. But, given that macaws are spiritedly long-distance travellers (e.g. Bonilla-Ruz et al., , Wilson Journal of Ornithology, , ‒), how small should this unlikelihood be? What constitutes ‘soon’? Confiscated grey parrots Psittacus erithacus released at Lake Victoria were, within months, ‘regularly mixing and flying with a small group of wild birds’ (PsittaScene August , ‒). If () some parrot diseases incubate for many months, () some healthy birds are life-long carriers, and () some cases escape detection however carefully screened, how confident can we be that releasing the macaws serves the best interests of the species? When confiscated birds are involved the alternatives are far from pleasant: deployment to zoos for education, lifelong care at a centre, or—most depressingly—euthanasia (although this is illegal in Indonesia for threatened species). All the more reason, therefore, that any release programme must observe the highest levels of scrutiny for pathogens (Jakob-Hoff et al., , Manual of Procedures for Wildlife Disease Risk Management. OIE, Paris, France), keeping birds in secure quarantine for ‒ months and retesting them at least twice for different diseases according to circumstance. Without such rigour, can the risk posed by captive birds to any targeted wild population—especially if the only population—ever be acceptable?