Opinion: Owning birds - whose rights should we be discussing?
By Charlie • January 23, 2009 • 40 commentsThe following piece is in two parts: the first is an op-ed I wrote discussing our ‘right’ to own birds; the second is a poignant piece written by Dr Stewart Metz of the Indonesian Parrot Project (a remarkable man whom we interviewed yesterday) and titled “A Parrot’s Bill of Rights”.
Op-ed: Do we have a right to own birds?
Charlie Moores, Jan 2009.
While researching the ‘parrot theme’ series - and trying to keep as open a mind as possible - I came across a website called “Those Majestic Macaws” (http://www.exoticbird.com). Written by someone called Barry Thraxton, one page really (how can I put this politely?) ‘caught my attention’. Entitled “Don’t lose your right to own birds” (http://www.exoticbird.com/rights.html) the whole page was devoted to warning of the threat posed by the “numerous organizations that are adamantly opposed to keeping birds“.
Collectively, he says, “these organizations are known as animal rights groups” and they are - apparently - “very powerful”, lobbying government, raising funds, and recruiting members. The page is undated but claims that “since the mid-l980’s membership in animal rights groups have increased approximately 5 fold” - which is as good as an admission that the message put out by “animal rightists” is not only being spread but well-received…
As befits a member of a democracy Mr Thraxton is as entitled to his opinions as ‘animal rightists’ living in the same democracy - but what really interests me is his assertion that people have a “right” to own birds, an assertion that he repeats in three different but more-encompassing ways as the article reaches its climax: “our very right to own birds”, “to deny our right to keep and breed birds”, and - in the last line of the page - “our rights to own, keep, and breed birds”.
“Our very right to own birds”? I’m going to come straight out with it and ask, Why on earth would anyone think that one species has a “right” to own another? I have no doubt at all that some (very decent and compassionate) people like to own birds, that some (ditto) want to own birds, that some people feel that their lives are enriched by owning birds, and I’m sure that some people believe that a bird itself will benefit by being owned. I wouldn’t want to ‘own’ a bird and would rather never see one in a cage again but I do recognise that many other people do. In the case of rescued birds specifically (ie birds taken away from uncaring or unsuitable ‘owners’ and placed with skilled, knowledgeable people who will look after them to the best of their ability) I’ll go as far as saying that there is a valid argument that the bird itself does benefit from being ‘owned’. What I don’t believe (and I’m surely not alone in this am I?) is that we have a right “to own birds”.
We’re all pretty familiar with the modish concept that us humans have ‘rights’ - to freedom, to dignity, to live our lives free of fear and pain (and, yes, I chose those particular values to make a point). After centuries of slavery, torture, and pain our ‘rights’ were finally enshrined in the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) principally as a result of the horrors inflicted - again - by humans on humans during the Second World War. We gave ourselves rights because during six years of Hell we took away the rights of so many other people. There are literally millions of species on this planet of ours, but just one that has ever claimed to have rights like these, and just one that so regularly and so widely ignores the ‘rights’ of others when it suits them.
I’ve often wondered whether these unique claims only arise because of our ability to verbalise and comprehend what each other says? No other species - as far as we know - can articulate the concept of rights: is that why they’ve consequently been denied them?
That might not be as naive a question as it sounds because historically we’ve consistently denied ‘human rights’ to each other when one section of the population (usually the poorer, less educated or less technologically-advanced, ‘inferior’ section) isn’t able to ask for their rights to be respected in a language that can be understood by the other (the richer, more dogmatic and more technologically-developed minority generally speaking). Imagine the dilemmas we’d face if all humans and all animals could speak to each other. What would a dolphin stuck in a chlorinated pool so that it could entertain people have to say about rights if it could talk? Or a wild-caught macaw taken out of the forests of South America and put in a cage for the rest of its life? Probably not “Pretty Polly”…
Personally I am sick to the back teeth of every Tom, Dick, and Barry using a “rights” argument to legitimise their personal viewpoint. I was going to ask where in the various constitutions and declarations written by various well-meaning bodies world-wide does it say that “owning birds” is a right (certainly not the UNDHR) - but why ask? Even if some obscure group of men sat around a table in some country or state somewhere arbritarily decided that “owning birds” was a right it wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t matter because it still wouldn’t be legitimate. We simply do not have a right to own birds any more than we have a right to own each other.
You think we do? Provide me with a totally convincing argument that justifies denying a bird the basic rights that we want for ourselves and I’ll listen. Don’t try telling me, though, that because we are stronger, more intelligent, more capable of capturing, transporting, and caging birds than any other species that gives us the right to do it. And don’t try telling me that because we can walk down to the nearest pet store with money in our pockets that gives us a “right” to take a bird home. Of course it doesn’t. Our perceived ’superiority’ doesn’t gives us “rights”, it just makes owning another species extremely easy.
I’m not arguing that we should now “ban pets” or that “birds have rights” and must be released: there are already millions of birds in captivity and suddenly releasing them would be cruel (’pet’ birds are often incapable of looking after themselves in the wild), dangerous (caged birds can carry diseases that could be passed onto wild birds), and totally impractical. Besides which it would break the hearts of genuinely caring bird-owners. But I will say this because I don’t think it can be seriously refuted: we should be talking here of privileges not rights, and if we ever want to get away from the outdated view that us humans should be able to do whatever we want with the world’s birds we should distance ourselves right now from any thoughts that we have any “rights” whatsoever to own, keep, and breed them…
A PARROT’S BILL OF RIGHTS
by Stewart A. Metz, M.D.
1. GET TO KNOW ABOUT PARROTS BEFORE YOU BRING ME HOME–I am not a domesticated pet like a dog or cat. I still have the spirit of the jungle in me. I have special needs which you may find it hard to fill. Please don’t learn these too late for my well-being. And please don’t acquire on of my cousins wild from the jungle–it will jeopardize his survival and well-being, and that won’t be a party for you either!
2. GIVE ME THE LARGEST HOME POSSIBLE–I am use to flying through rainforests or savannas. I have given up this great gift for your pleasure. At the very least, give me enough room to flap my wings and exercise. And I need toys for my amusement and wood to chew-otherwise, I might confuse your Home with the forest and its trees.
3. GIVE ME A NUTRITIOUS DIET–I need a wide variety of fresh and nutritious foods, even if they take time to prepare. I cannot survive on seed alone. Take time to learn what my needs are.
4. LET ME HAVE A “SOCIAL LIFE”–I am a gregarious flock animal–but I am not one of you. I need lots of socialization to learn how to act with you, and with my siblings. I also need to have adequate quality time with you every day-no matter what your schedule or other needs are. I am a living, feeling creature. Above all, I need to be able to have complete trust in you, and count on your predictability in looking after me–every day.
5. LET ME BE CLEAN–I may like to drop food or even throw it, but I need meticulous cleanliness to be healthy. My skin itches without frequent showers, the barbs of my feathers won’t seal if they become oily and, worst of all, I may become ill if my food or water is not always sanitary.
6. I NEED MY OWN DOCTOR–You may not understand my physiology and therefore you may not recognize it early on when I get sick. And it may be too late when you do, because I hide my illnesses (remember what I said about my being an animal of the jungle, where there are lots of predators). And I need an avian vet–a specialist (no HMOs for me please). If you can’t afford one, perhaps you shouldn’t have taken me home.
7. PLEASE DON’T PUNISH ME–Just as I don’t always understand your peculiarities, you may not understand mine. I don’t TRY to get in trouble–remember, a house is not the jungle. If I do screw up, don’t yell at me and never hit me. I have sensitive ears and I may never trust you again if you strike me. Hands are sometimes scary things to us (why in the world would you not be zygodactylous like us?). Even more importantly, we don’t learn by punishment. We are gentle creatures who only strike back to protect ourselves; we learn through patience and love.
8. SPEAK MY “LANGUAGE”–I know you get upset with me when I knock over my water bowl, throw food, scream or pluck my feathers. I don’t do these to annoy you - I am probably trying to tell you something (perhaps that I am hurting, lonely, or sad.). Learn to speak MY (body) language. Remember that I, alone of all creatures on this planet, learn to speak yours!
9. SEE ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL–I am a unique and feeling being…No two of us are alike. Please don’t be
disappointed in me if I don’t talk like you wanted, or can’t do the tricks that your friend’s parrot can do. But if you pay close attention to me (and I always empathize with you, whether you know it or not), I will show you a unique being who will give you so much more than talking and playing…Give me a chance to show you who I am; I think you’ll find the effort worth it. And remember–I am not an ornament; I do not enhance ANY living room decor. And I am not a status symbol–if you use me as such, I might nip at your up-turned nose!
10. SHARE YOUR LOVE WITH ME–Above all, please remember that you are my Special Person. I put all my trust and faith in you… We parrots are used to being monogamous (no bar-hopping for us!). So please don’t go away for long periods or give me away–that would be a sadness from which I may never recover. If that seems to be asking a lot, remember–you could have learned about my needs BEFORE bringing me home. Even having a baby or taking a new job isn’t a fair reason–you made a commitment to me FIRST! And if you think that you must leave me because you might die, provide for me forever after you leave. I may live to a ripe old age but I can’t provide for myself. Remember I’m in a small cage amongst people who are not of my blood.
11. YOUR RIGHTS–You have lots of rights, but I can only assure one. And that is, if you treat me the way I described above, I will reward you with unwavering love, humor, knowledge, beauty, dedication - and a sense of wonder and awe you haven’t felt since you were a child. When you took me home, you became my Flock Leader, indeed, my entire universe–for life. I would hang the moon and stars for you if I could. We are one in Heart and Soul.
Looking for a good book or field guide? We've got some suggestions...
Hi Charlie, I totally agree with you. Personally I can’t bear seeing birds in cages and strongly feel that a caged bird is a crime against nature as well as a crime against the bird itself.
I agree with you about ‘rights’, too. We don’t have a ‘right’ to cage birds, the same as we don’t have a ‘right’ to kill them either.
People who know of my love of birds can’t understand why I don’t “own” one. The distinction between watching birds in their natural element, and watching them in MY natural element, seems semantic to them.
I try to keep an open mind; at least caged-bird owners LIKE birds. My attitude is the same with hunters: I can’t imagine seeing something beautiful in nature and shooting it, but am comfortable enough in my own hypocrisy to not mind buying the resultant carnage shrink-wrapped in the grocery store for my gustatory pleasure.
As much as we’d like to think of it in terms of black and white, it ain’t; nothing is. Every hunter I’ve met considers himself a nature lover. Every budgie owner I’ve met considers himself a bird lover. While I might quibble with their conclusions, they both CERTAINLY have more empathy for birds and nature than the video game-addicted teen who’s never so much as caught a frog.
“Us Vs. Them.” That was the slogan of the previous administration. A bird in the cage causes me pain; a bird in the oven causes me Pavlovian salivation. There’s much “wrong” with that statement, but the parsing of the folly is the sport, and right, of the individual.
“God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages.” Jacque Deval
We have a green-cheeked conure. He joined our family when we found him beating himself against our windows, apparently trying to get in.
He is often a delight, but he is a bird with the manners of a seagull and the curiosity of a toddler. I would never purchase a bird or recommend that others do. After living with this bird for 5 months and trying to give him as much freedom as possible I assure you, birds belong in trees, not houses.
As soon as you people stop harassing birds with your airliners, cars, and feet while tramping through the bushes in search of photographing birds, and building homes and cities and roads and dams on top of their nests, then the need to keep birds safe in captivity will no longer be there. Captivity was the only thing that saved the last 19 CA Condors (nowe there are over 300), and it is captivity that is the only chance to save species like the Spix Macaw, Mautitius Kestrel, Kakapo Parrot, and countless others.
Your comments shows a certain kind of naivety that does not take into account the massive destruction of wild habitat due to human overpopulation that is only increasing exponentially every year. So long as humans have the right to destroy birds and their habitats, other will have the right to keep them safe in captivity.
My comments are showing a certain kind of naivety? No, they’re not. What you’ve done is missed the point entirely about the wild bird trade, made facetious comments without bothering to look into my or anyone else’s background or previous statements (which if you’d looked would show that over-population is something we think about a great deal), and managed to make yourself look like an idiot while doing it. Oh, and humans still don’t have the right to keep birds.
The subject of “rights” with regards to birds is an interesting one. I agree with the author of the article in one sense, too often “rights” are invented and assumed when none actually exist in the law of this country. Last time I checked the Bill of Rights there was none entitled “Right to Own Birds”. Even if there was such an entry in the BoR, given the way the other Rights are politically interpreted and twisted today I would highly doubt that many of us would be satisfied with “The Right to Own Birds” no matter how it was written (see: Right to Bear Arms and the daily dilution of this simple Right).
I do believe in a whole long list of rights that I claim were God given to me and every other responsible human regardless of which country I/we happen to reside in. I know that any such mention of God to some of you will draw a rich lather of disgust. Instantly your heads become filled with thoughts of “redneck”, “ignorant”, “gullible”, “zealot”, “fool”, “anti-science” and many other highly negative and highly incorrect assumptions. Don’t deny it. Own it! So often the people who claim to be for freedom and free speech are the ones who want to deny those RIGHTS to others who disagree with them.
Here are some examples of God given rights that I believe in and that loosely apply in this discussion:
Right to live where you want to.
Right to have children.
Right to own/keep animals.
Right to utilize our planet’s resources.
BUT! Each of these God given rights also come with a HUGE responsibility. These rights are NOT unconditional. They require large amounts of knowledge, of consideration of others, of care, of stewardship and of commitment. It is a “pay to play” scenario. We must “pay” for our rights by upholding our responsibilities and therefore we get to “play” with the benefits of our rights. If this circular relationship breaks down at any point then we no longer have our rights. Who gets to determine when we have allowed our responsibilities to break down and have squandered our rights? The reasonable consensus of the society we live in? Hopefully. OR………. (Warning- Atheist Heartburn Alert!) For those of us that believe in God, we have agreed to subject ourselves to principles that are meant to guide us through life. Anyone who knows these principles well will be able to clearly identify when the responsibility part of the rights have been compromised.
OK, so, back to our “rights” to own birds. We DO NOT have a “right” to own birds in the legal definition of the law of this country. This can be proven in any number of ways. The fact that there are citizens right now in this country who have had their birds taken away from them is proof that there exists no inalienable right. Owning birds has conditions attached to it.
BUT! Taking into account what I propose above about having certain “God given” or shall we say “Human Rights”, we SHOULD be able to own birds (or any animal for that matter) as long as we uphold the principles of responsible citizenship or responsible “Human-ship”.
The same goes for where/how we want to live, how and how many children we want to have and how we utilize our planet’s resources. These rights are being attacked and savaged on a daily basis in this country and in this world. So many have forsaken the responsibilities of their rights that it has allowed the people who do not truly believe in “Human Rights” to use the examples of the irresponsible to take away the rights of those that practice responsibility. They prefer to punish everyone rather than remove the rights of those that have willingly broken their agreement with their own rights. It is a very warped way of thinking. It is affecting everyone now.
The author of the article on the blog, Charlie, is obviously passionate about his love for wild birds. Unfortunately, he has very little understanding about what the true human/animal relationship should be. He misunderstands and misrepresents the keeping of an animal in captivity. He over dramatizes the animal’s life in the wild and in captivity. He may have some understanding of how to observe birds in the wild but he clearly has no clue as to the healthy, humane and responsible means of keeping an animal in captivity. He does make another excellent point though. It is a privilege to own the animals that we do.
Charlie uses the example of war atrocities and slavery (the emotionally confused always do) to analogize how animals have been treated by humans. This shows to me that Charlie has a very slippery grip on reality. Once again, believing that humans evolved from apes and are therefore no better and have no higher “rights” than any other organism devolves the reasoning down to a zero sum game.
This is what I do not understand about those that vigorously promote the theory of evolution without any acceptance of God or a higher power. If “survival of the fittest” is the overriding factor that determines every other organism’s evolution, then why do most evolutionists want to restrict and blame humans for all the planet’s ills when humans are simply succeeding at the game they believe they are playing? Those of you that believe in spontaneous evolution and the survival of the fittest without any sort of higher power had better work on your argument. As it stands now, your positions justify ANY human activity including the destruction of all other species and resources in a totally selfish streak through time until the next, more intelligent and more powerful species evolves and starts the whole process all over again.
So, to wrap up my unapologetic diatribe (don’t like it? your keyboard should have evolved more delete keys!!!) I will say that those of us that believe we should have the privilege of responsibly owning birds/animals should also be constantly striving and pushing and showing BY EXAMPLE how to humanely keep our animals and therefore remove the oxygen of these warped people who would like nothing more than to revoke your Rights and your “rights”.
John Del Rio
Charlie, oh good-intentioned spirit….Yes, you are 100% NAIVE to the wonderful world and countless benefits of captive bird keeping. Whether it be the last of a species being kept safe in a habitat to produce precious offspring for release, or a common cockatiel living with an elderly woman who has no family and whose companion bird brings her joy every day that she lives, and each of those days is spent doting over he little feathered friend.
I don’t have to to look into your background…you posted an article on a public forum and that is the only thing being discussed. But we all know more about you from you assinine comments following my commentary, we all can see you are an ass.
I hope as a pilot your skills are anywhere close to hero Scully’s, because your skills as a bird philospopher, and as a open forum diplomat, REALLY SUCK!
Tom, your mean-spirited discourse wouldn’t be welcome on a public forum, let alone this site which, while open to public commentary, is NOT a public forum. Charlie is one of the owners of this site. The substance of your comment might be taken slightly more seriously if you weren’t such a dick about it.
Regarding your last comment, comparing conservation of endangered species to locking up common birds for human companionship is apples and oranges. Don’t drag the people trying to preserve species we’ve trapped into oblivion into this. Instead, think about what happens to that cockatiel when its owner passes on - chances are it will starve to death in its cage or be thrown out the window. And what happens when instead of a cockatiel, we’re talking about a long lived macaw or amazon?
And as for you, Jack, your line “don’t like it? your keyboard should have evolved more delete keys!!!” betrays an arrogant ignorance of basic science and a complete lack of courtesy. Leaving a comment on someone else’s blog is a privilege, not a right. Plus, when you start in with the argument that God gives you the right to keep birds in cages, you tend to lose those of us who are actually exploring ethics rather than “parroting” what some pastor tells us.
Mike:
Thanks for defending me against being called an idiot for no reason. If you re-read the course of the comments, I spoke on behalf of pro-captive bird keeping, then your pal Charlie called me an idiot. Maybe he didn’t like the word naive, but that is the word to desribe when someone doesn’t know about something else, in this case, all the benefits to capitve bird keeping.
I think that when someone offers an opposing viewpoint, and then they are immediately labeled as an “idiot,” that’s about as mean spirited as you could ever get. I simply followed him in the direction of commenting which he chose to take it.
By the way, there are lots of decent people out there who don’t allow birds to just starve or get thrown out of windows.
Maybe you too, need to explore more before you mean-sprited comments.
@Tom: I think you need to go back and reread the post, and maybe a couple of other posts Charlie has up here, like, I don’t know, the one about the Spix’s Macaws, or about environmental devastation, you know, the topics that you said Charlie was naive about. Charlie didn’t call you an idiot because you disagreed with him: he called you an idiot because you are an idiot.
And it is certainly not Mike’s job to defend idiots.
Have a nice day.
i actually think the previous commenter (tom) made a valid point, and s/he doesn’t look at all like an idiot. these are important issues that MUST be addressed. further, if you’d done your homework, you’d know that the importation of all wild birds into the USA was stopped in 1992 and was stopped in the EU in 2007. (yes, i supported the passage of this law).
speaking of, erm, “rights”, using your definition of rights, humans do not have the “right” to keep any animal, nor do we have the “right” to kill any animal, whether we do scientific research on it to preserve and prolong human and animal lives, or if we wear that dead animal or eat it or prevent it from eating our house or eating our kids. further, overpopulation is not an academic issue to merely talk about, it is a real and pressing problem that is destroying huge areas of our planet because we are desperate to grow more crops and food and build more housing to support more and more people. worse — we DO have enough for everyone on this planet, but the greed of a few malicious people is what makes it impossible for everyone to live without destroying yet more habitat.
i thought you were genuinely using an open mind in your exploration of this issue of keeping birds, particularly parrots, in captivity, charlie, but i am really surprised and offended by your hostile response to the previous commenter. i am sure if his comments made you react in such a hostile knee-jerk way, anything i have to say will cause you to react in a far stronger and more aggressive and thoughtless manner. i don’t want to submit my “guest blog” essay (which YOU INVITED ME TO WRITE) to your little parrot month shindig since it appears to me that i have been invited to walk willingly into a trap: it is obvious to me that you are planning to make me (and others who agree with me), into some sort of evil pariah because i have different ideas than you do. i have spent many years being lambasted by creationists and other religious wingnuts and therefore, i know rigid, unthinking dogma when i see it, and i also know that it is impossible to argue with someone whose opinions have been set in stone long before i ever appeared on the scene.
Oh dear, dear me. Now GrrlScientist has waded in and decided to unilaterally withdraw her (unwritten?) essay. There are some very soft centres out there aren’t there, talking about traps, creationists, and the like. I’m not a scientist so I can’t define paranoia, but…
Anyway, I’m sure we’ll all miss your contribution to our “little parrot month shindig” but now we’ll never know, and you’ll never know what my reaction would or wouldn’t have been, because you don’t want anyone to read it. Oh well, never mind eh, there are plenty (20+ at the moment) of balanced and informative pieces from both keepers and conservationists alike to keep most people informed without it.
Shall we move on folks, because I feel punished enough now…?(LOL)
Corey: Your outlook would definately be massively improved if you had the benefit of companionship from a little bird in your home.
Many people love birds. There are different ways to express that love. For little old ladies with arthritis, their canary or cockatiel in a cage brings daily joy. Often, this joy is mutual. For the birdwatcher, traveling to many different sites and observing birds in the wild is a joy. For the bird breeder, watching new hatches grow into beautiful youngsters is a joy. However, in all those cases, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the individual has a grasp of what is truly involved in the life of birds, nor of the threats that wild birds face, even right here in the good ole USA…where one of the threats is the many feral cats maintained in colonies which daily destroy wild birds and small animals. Loving birds doesn’t mean those who love them are also well informed about birds and their needs, whether wild birds or birds kept in captivity.
As anyone who follows the conservation organizations and their publications realizes, many birds (and animals)are under severe threat primarily from loss of habitat due to human population expansion, but also from climate change, from islands of floating debris in the ocean, from long line fishing, from destruction of forest and wetland in order to build resorts, mine for minerals, drill for oil, clear areas for ranches and farms, and the list goes on.
Serious knowledgeable bird lovers know that for many species one solution to their threatened extinction is being kept and bred in captivity, as was done with the California Condor. In fact, the late Dr. Ulysses Seal of the IUCN stated that for the long run, both habitat protection and captive breeding were needed in order to save species from extinction.
Do any true bird lovers want birds to become extinct?
I doubt it. Therefore, it seems to me that those of us who love birds must do all within our power to see that avian species are protected. For some, that will mean supporting the removal of feral cat colonies and replacing Trap/Neuter/Release with Trap/Neuter/Secure. For others that will mean taking action to protect a specific natural habitat from being used for other purposes. For others that will mean supporting conservation projects. For others that will mean responsible keeping and breeding of species. For others that will mean publishing information on threats to habitat, or on conservation projects, or on interesting information about birds so the general public becomes more informed and more interested in protecting birds.
We are at an important time in the history of our planet…a time when many changes are occuring as a result of the activities of man. We need to pull together, each one of us, and do whatever we can to save species. Each individual will have contact points in their lives where an action taken will help ensure the future of birds on the planet. Taken together, these many individual acts will make a difference for the birds we love. So, let’s each one of us do our part and make that difference for the birds.
Hi!
The notion of ‘protecting parrots’ (or any other creature) by breeding it in captivity is without foundation in reality. A wild creature is not some fixed entity which can be ‘preseved’ by captive breeding. All creatures (including humans) are the product of *natural selection*. They arise, and change with each new generation that breeds in their natural habitat. The result of *captive breeding* for most birds now in captivity, is serious species degeneration within a few generations. One only has to look at the degenerate canaries, budgerigars, ring-necked parakeets etc whose degenerate, captive-bred forms would not last a day in their natural habitat.
Natural selection does appear to be a ‘wasteful’ process since most individuals (around 80% for most birds) fail to ever reach breeding age in the wild. These birds fall prey to others (who also have to be fed!) or die of starvation and diseases. This is the very (admittedly grim) process by which all creatures on our planet have come into being. The notion that some relatively transient species such as ours, whose stay on this planet is not likely to be very long, can protect (sic) a species by removing it from it from the very processes which allowed it to evolve in the first place is nonsense. Captive breeding only has a place as a very short-term, stop-gap measure. It can only be successful where the birds are soon returned to their natural habitat. The Spix’s macaw does not now have a natural habitat, and is unlikely to ever re-establish in the wild. Without being subjected to natural selection, and being forced to be subjected to anthropocentric ’selection’ the species is doomed as a wild bird. The case for the kakapo and echo parakeet is better, so long as there is some habitat for them to be returned to.
The captive breeding/conservation myth is one of those often-repeated nonsense concepts that belongs in the dustbin of history: unnatural selction *IS* extinction.
Greg Glendell
http://www.greg-parrots.co.uk
Well, Mr. Glendell, I recognize you have an “opinion” about breeding birds. However, unless I am mistaken, I do not believe you have a life long background in the study and work of conservation of species.
Therefore, if I am going to listen to experts about conservation and extinction, I think I am going to consult with those who have spent a lifetime working in the field, where they started by being thoroughly grounded in the basics of conservation biology studies and afterward they traveled the world to work with and advise officials and private sector folks in breeding endangered and non-endangered species.
As regards genetics and mate selection, many serious bird breeders do not choose imperfect or problematic specimens to be breeding birds. In addition, bird breeders set up whole flocks of quality birds where the individual birds CHOOSE their mates and subsequently REAR their chicks. That way the youngsters are well qualifed and experienced when they reach adulthood and have the opportunity to choose a mate and to reproduce.
We are not talking about breeding canaries and budgies here, but about breeding the many other species which are not so well represented in aviculture. Let’s not forget that birds include many different species, including pheasants, which happen to have excellent conservation projects in process. Some projects involve young pheasants raised in captivity and returned to the wild (carefully prepared for release first) in order to replenish the low population of their wild counterparts.
Since we humans have had an impact on ALL of the natural world, it seems REASONABLE and RESPONSIBLE to take action to do what we can to make a difference for the continuation of species during our time on earth.
While it is important to look to the future, we need to look at the present and see WHERE each one of us can make a difference for the future of birds and animals. Thinking in those terms, I don’t believe it is the responsible course of action to “put all our eggs in one basket” and choose only ONE means of protecting species: habitat protection.
It certainly makes sense for those of us living in countries like the US and the UK to take action to protect our NATIVE SPECIES from the threat of development in habitat areas, from the threat of lighted towers in migratory routes, from the threat of feral cat colonies in nature refuges, from the threat of pollution and the over use of chemicals, etc.
This is the best blog post and discussion in the history of blogging, or at least in the history of blogging about birds.
Spot on Charlie!
Re Laura Desborough’s comments.
Yes, I have studied conservation biology and carried out many surveys on wild birds, recording their breeding successes and habitat needs. I am familiar with population dynamics and the mortality associated with the effects of natural selection. These studies were carried out for the British Trust for Ornithology and the UK’s RSPB. I have worked for several local government councils on habitat conservation here in the UK. Birds have been my life. But the vile practices used by breeders to dupe an ignorant public into thinking they can keep parrots as ‘pets’ in cages, in social isolation from their own species merely for the benifit of their owner’s whimsical and transient ‘needs’ is no justification for keeping such non-domesticated species in captivity.
The only ‘defence’ that breeders can put up for their activities is their right(sic) to these activities. This ‘right’ to do these things to these birds cannot be excercised without its associated cruelties. It is not the function of birds to be abused in this way. Nor is it the function of human beings to ignore the birds intrisic ‘rights’ to live out their lives in the roles they have evolved to live over millions of years. When we really understand birds and respect them for what they are, we realise that they are not items to be bought and sold, or eaten as ‘food’ etc.
Greg Glendell
Laurella, thanks for the lesson in conservation which you felt obliged to give us but would your interest in the rights of owning birds (which you didn’t actually address I notice) be anything to do with your interest in (as your website at http://eclectusbreeder.com/about.htm says) “Breeding exotic birds…including amazons, greys, cockatoos, brownheaded parrots, hawkheads and mini-macaws. Specializing in Eclectus parrots and Vasa Parrots” and being a “Past President of the American Federation of Aviculture”?
Are you the same Laurella who proved what she thought of the ‘average’ person’s intelligence when she stated that “The sad thing is that the average person is being duped by the propaganda of the animal rights which has been promoted for the past 25 years in the media and even in the schools!” (sic) on http://www.bloggernews.net/111851?
Or even the same Laurella who talks of belonging to the “animal use community”?
Surely you can’t be the same Laurella who is described on http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/Advocate_Laurella_Desborough.htm thus: “Her focus is on producing healthy quality birds, providing accurate information to clients and other bird breeders, and working in the regulatory and legislative arenas to promote animal welfare while protecting the interests of animal owners and breeders.”
If it is you really do seem to pop up everywhere that anyone talks about breeders and owners - let alone “rights” (which you actually didn’t discuss - oh, I mentioned that). I’m just asking so I can get a better idea of who’s reading our “little parrot month shindig” (@ grrrlscientist)…
If breeders are really honest about preserving a species in captivity, albeit even if it is a pale shadow of the original species with only morphological similarities, then they should probably confine their collection to just one species/sub species of parrot. I don’t see how having multiple bird collections are going to contribute to conservation.
If for a example a breeder has a flock of 10 Alexandrine parakeets belonging to the Andaman islands - Psittacula eupatria magnirostris from which s/he breeds and exchanges birds with other breeders who have the same subspecies. S/he also visits the Andaman islands once every two years to contribute to habitat conservation for this unique species, then he/she probably has ‘rights’ to keep the birds.
But I don’t think even 1 in a 1000 breeder has such commitments.
Hi Charlie,
I can’t even begin to touch piece by piece on the number of points brought up by those who refute your article that I disagree with. I am saddened that those who believe in evolution, etc have been labelled above as being close-minded and unspiritual, for my belief in God is very vibrant and strong and yet causes me to support your beliefs, not deny them.
I do want to say that I full-heartedly agree with your article and everything you said. A notion of “right to own” anything natural, from plots of land to the creatures that roam it, to me is unconscienable. God gave parrots great forests and vast habitats to roam, breed, forage, and socialize in - humans, who are undeniably fallible, have come to rationalize taking that splendid freedom away to support our own pleasures.
The fact that the vast majority of bred and captured birds are tortured by poor diet, solitary confinement, and health and behavior problems is a reality that cannot be refuted. I volunteer in a parrot sanctuary which exposes me to this undeniable fact daily. These atrocious pet-trade capitivity situations are a far and disasterous cry from the saving of the California condors by trained ecological conservationists. I cannot see a “right” which causes such untold miseries to be grounded in God’s plan. I know there are good bird owners who care for tolerably happy birds. Yet I know that nevertheless, birds were meant to fly free.
I bought a cockatiel at a pet store last year who came home to me with psitticosis, a deadly avian disease which can be passed to humans with low immune systems. The vet told me that she likely contracted the disease in the breeding facility, many of which are huge profiteering corporations who keep their birds in tiny cages in poor conditions and sell them out to pet stores. I had the option of euthanizing her but I spend nearly a thousand dollars treating her. Since then I have learned so much about animal welfare and the plight of pet parrots, and my own support of the pet trade now haunts me. I strive beyond belief to provide my little bird with a happy life, but she is still in a cage in my living room right now. I’m committed to her care for the next 30 years, and I’ve never loved an animal more than her, yet if I could let her go in the wild and know she would live I would do it in an instant. She deserves it so much.
Thank you again Charlie for a beautiful and insightful article. If just 10% of what you said was taken to heart by those who read it the world would be a better place.
LeAnne - thankyou
Charlie thank you for taking the time to write such an insightful article. I’ld like to second what Leann has said in regards to 10% of those reading this article will take it to heart.
For those who are using the California Condor as an example of breeding please do your research and compare the breeding program of this magnificant bird to the breeding programs of large parrots. Where is the money exchange for the condor? Who got rich off breeding these birds? All of the wild condors that were left in the wild were captured for the sole purpose of saving the species. One of the few extremely successful breeding programs out there. I was fortunate enough this past fall to see one of these bred birds flying free in the Grand Canyon. How many of the breeders out there of parrots can say the same thing? How many cockatoos have been bred to be sent on to the South Pacific or Australia for release? Any Red-vented Cockatoos being bred today for release back in the Philipines or are they being bred to be sold to the highest bidder? How many Macaw breeds are being saved by breeding? Are they being sold or are they being bred to be sent back to South America? When the statement breeding to save the species is spoken by those that intend to sell the animal as a pet irratates me to no end. Breeding to save the species (any species) should only be said for those that have a plan of reintroduction. That is the only method of saving a species. And yes I fully understand that some species are beyond saving due to lack of land, pollution and all of the other areas of progress that mankind has bestowed on this world of ours. We should be working to save those that we can like the California Condor.
Thank you for allowing my rant.
Nancy
Well, I haven’t had time to answer all the comments re my prior comments due to being a responsible bird breeder and protecting birds from our cold spell, but I will be responding to Greg’s and Charlie’s comments later.
Meanwhile, as to Nancy’s comments re breeding and the California Condor. Do you think that project was done WITHOUT MONEY??? FYI many of the bird clubs in California helped support that effort with funding. The state also has a special area on the CA state tax forms where folks could designate a portion of taxes to the project.
Aviculturists support the California Condor program.
To denigrate ALL bird breeding because birds are being sold is simply misdirecting the issue. Since when, in the USA or anywhere in the world, has money been declared evil??? Why do members of the public respect Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and other multi-millionaires? Because of their personal charm, or their money???
As far as breeding birds to make money, to my knowledge the MAJORITY of bird breeders raise birds because they like birds. Maybe 5 to 10 percent of all bird breeders actually make an annual profit raising birds. In my case, I support my bird breeding with my retirement funds every month. Yes. I do sell birds, both as pets and others socialized as breeders…to help defray the costs of the breeding project. But, if I wanted to make money, I would not be breeding birds to do it. That would be a big waste of time and effort. I breed birds because I like birds. I want to see them on the planet hundreds of years from now…not extinct due to the reckless destruction of their habitat by over population, development by multi-national corporations (whose products YOU and I and ALL on reading this are enjoying, from coffee to gasoline to beef to furniture and just about anything else).
So, while decrying the situation for birds, WHAT are you doing about it? What are you doing to change their loss of habitat????
I SPECIALIZE in eclectus parrots and have since 1983. That is how I know a lot about them. I have plenty of examples to study. I was the one who did the research and wrote the first articles on distinguishing the various subspecies. I was the one who urged people to keep the subspecies separate and breed for purity of subspecies.
As far as conservation, I gave my first talk on conservation over fifty years ago…about conserving our native wildlife. This has been a serious project for me for a lifetime. I have worked to raise funds for various conservation projects, from RARE Center to AFA conservation projects.
Now, let’s address reintroduction. Breeding for reintroduction is a good idea but sending birds to x, y, z country would NOT be desirable at this time. Why? Because we do not have testing techniques that are adequate to determine whether or not x bird has x disease PRIOR to sending that bird to a country for reintroduction.
To reintroduce birds that have been captured, confiscated from smugglers or bred in captivity is unwise at this time according to the SCIENTISTS who work with reintroductions. That is because of the likelihood of introducing birds into the wild that carry diseases that could dramatically affect wild populations. It would be irresponsible to re-introduce birds. Knowledgeable conservation folks and bird breeders are very aware of that problem, due to the information they receive in conferences and in seminars and from contact with field biologists.
However, to say that because we cannot reintroduce birds into the wild that all our breeding efforts are for naught, is to be blind to the fact that we are preserving a gene pool of many avian species by keeping them and breeding them in captivity today. Many of us who raise birds also socialize them to their own kind while they are youngsters to that IF and WHEN they are needed to provide offspring for reintroduction, they will be able to do so.
FYI, adult birds that are bred and raised in captivity would not be the ones released. These birds would be the parents for the release birds. The young birds to be released would be placed in huge flights in the countries of origin where they would be acclimated to the fruiting trees and food stuffs they would find in the wild. Each release project would have to be studied and the specifics of that project would govern the details on how the birds would be prepared and when and how they would be released and monitored.
However, there are projects working on breeding birds for FUTURE reintroduction. We are doing that with the Greater Vasa parrots which are kept, bred and OWNED by the Advocates for Bird Conservation organization. Why did we choose to work with this species? Because it was the one parrot species that was declared most likely to go extinct in the wild and in captivity WITHOUT a special captive breeding program. So, we work with a collection of over 50 birds now, breeding for genetic diversity (under the guidance of an expert in avian genetics). Other bird breeders work with other species for the same reasons, whether these are private programs or part of some official program. These program may or may not be publicized.
Laurella,
I don’t think anyone declared money evil, so your knocking down of that straw man is certainly less than impressive. Nancy was pointing out that the breeding program for California Condors was not done for profit (no one is selling California Condors). It is the way that money is made that is objectionable. If I got rich by selling people into slavery most people would consider me abhorrent: this is how I feel about those (like you) who make money breeding parrots for sale.
The American Federation of Aviculture, of which you are a past president, fights ANY regulation of the bird breeding industry, whether the regulation is attempting to ban the sale of unweaned baby birds or mandating a standard of care more strict than that established by animal cruelty laws (if this is not true please provide examples). In your position as Legislative Chair for the Avicultural Society of America (check out this list of sponsors of their bulletin) I am pretty darn sure that you personally fought new regulation. Instead you put together a “voluntary inspection and certification service for bird breeding facilities in the U.S”. I’m quite sure that voluntary inspection lacks the teeth that federal, state or local regulations would bring (especially considering that this is how the voluntary inspection regimen is described “Confidentiality is an integral part of each aspect of the program. Inspection involves facilities, management practices, and record keeping. No data is collected on types of birds or numbers of birds owned or bred by participants”). Why is the voluntary program needed? Well, we can turn to the site of the program itself to find out (to AVOID REGULATION!).
I find it telling that the web address you choose to link to in your comments is that of a conservation organization that you work with rather than your breeding business website or that of the ASA or NAIA.
Though the AFA’s position statement concerning Avian Legislative/Regulatory Issues says that the AFA “OPPOSES legislation or regulation that may be detrimental to avian welfare” I can’t help but notice that this comes after “avian education, welfare, legislation and regulation that benefit its members”. I wonder what happens when the interests of the birds aren’t the same as the interests of the AFA’s members (considering that the members are pretty much breeders).
Finally, as someone who serves on the board of the NAIA, which also has as a board member a man who is “Vice President of Government Relations for Feld Entertainment, Inc., parent company of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey” I don’t think that your concern for the welfare of animals is genuine.
Perhaps, from here on out, when you are signing your comments here it would be more appropriate for you to use the name “Cruella” rather than “Laurella”.
Some species have been saved by captive breeding programs managed by professional biologists. In the case of the Echo Parakeet, Kakapo, California Condor, or Mauritius Kestrel, biologists were not breeding the birds and shipping them off to pet stores. Raising human-imprinted parrots for the pet trade does not help wild birds. This is the post hoc rationalization, not the primary reason, that the majority of parrot breeders breed parrots. Many focus on what’s popular in the pet trade, not what’s endangered. Many popular pet species, like Quaker Parakeets and Indian Ringneck Parakeets are not endangered.
Also, the success rate for reintroduction programs is extremely low when species have disappeared completely in the wild. For the most part, the flow of animals from the wild into captivity is strictly one-way. The vast majority of the descendants of any captive wild animal will never return to the wild.
Well, Corey, I believe it is quite “telling” when individuals can only focus on one thing regarding captive breeding…”someone is making money selling birds in the pet trade,” and then comparing this activity to human “slavery” and alluding to circuses as being terrible. And, finally, concluding this personal attack with name calling, rather than addressing points. This is typical of a person who follows the animal rights agenda…no need to discuss facts, just go ahead and attack the person and re-direct readers away from facts.
Fortunately, thoughtful people don’t buy into that and look at the whole picture. Animal rights followers want to paint one black and white picture…basically that all animal breeders are evil…but, the facts do not support that contention. When you have a mind set and are passionate about an issue, you are likely to see only what you want to see. I do not expect to change the minds of animal rights followers.
Regarding pet stores, many bird breeders NEVER ship birds to pet stores! They sell to carefully vetted clients, and provide extended follow up so that the bird is receiving proper care and the client is well informed. Pet stores generally deal in cockatiels, budgies and the smaller conures. And, there are some wonderful bird stores in the US who provide great information to their clients and assist them with their birds.
Bird breeders who raise birds for the purpose of maintaining a viable gene pool for the future do not raise “human-imprinted” birds. That would be pointless. They raise birds that are parent reared and socialized into a flock. These birds KNOW they are birds and KNOW how to interact with others of their kind. Bird breeders who are interested in birds and their behavior have done a lot of observation of behavior and have contributed to the knowledge base for avian species, as well as assisting in conservation work.
I can give you some pretty silly examples of mistakes a few biologists and conservationists have made while attempting to manage and/or breed rare and endangered species. They made these mistakes because they did not have a background in aviculture. It is one thing to observe a bird in the wild but entirely another thing to understand HOW to work with that wild bird when it is in a captive situation. That is both a skill and an art form learned over many years of serious dedicated observation on the part of aviculturists.
Regarding regulations, when a very poor bill was proposed in California regarding birds in pet stores, the avicultural community responded by fighting the bill and THEN working with regulators to come up with a bill that would actually be effective in protecting birds in pet stores. That latter bill was passed into law recently.
Many times regulations and laws that are proposed have been drafted by individuals who have NO KNOWLEDGE of bird facility management, birds needs, or avian welfare. Those kinds of proposals lead to difficulties for the birds and that is why such proposals are routinely fought down. When hearings are held and legislators become informed of the realities, they back away from proposals which would be detrimental to the welfare of the birds and have no positive effect on society. Most legislators are reasonable and do want to know the facts.
As regards the Model Aviculture Program, work on that program started in 1985 as a means to improve the care and welfare of birds in breeding facilities. I would think that most people concerned with avian welfare would be applauding the program, not knocking it. State agencies and legislators like the program. Georgia created state regulations modeled on MAP. Canada has a program modeled on MAP.
When many bird breeders have worked to improve avian welfare, have donated hundreds of dollars to conservation because they love birds, have worked to breed and raise healthy happy birds, it is interesting that the only response some people have is that this is terrible because some birds are being sold! People are “making money” by selling birds. Frankly, I would like to know HOW one would expect people to cover the costs for food and housing of birds without selling some. To expect that birds being raised would never be sold would mean that ONLY the rich could have birds because they would be the only ones who could afford to keep them in a responsible manner.
Additionally, IF birds were “given away” by breeders to anyone who wanted a bird, those “give away” birds would likely be devalued in the eyes of their new owners, since money is the means by which most everything in the modern world is evaluated: houses, jobs, autos, vacations, food, and people. So, I don’t think it would be smart to devalue birds that way.
None of that changes the fact that the majority of parrot breeders are breeding birds that are imprinted on humans. A large number of breeders pull babies for hand-feeding before or very shortly after their eyes open. How does that help conservation? If few breeders sell to pet stores, then where on earth are all these pet stores I see selling parrots getting their birds from? Where I live, there are several stores that sell large parrots and many have quite a big selection of birds. Some take adequate care of the birds and one is so nasty that few people I know who love birds will even go in there.
Just as it’s ridiculous for animal rights activists to paint everyone who owns a pet bird as “evil,” or a “slave owner,” it’s just as ridiculous to assume that all breeders have conservation as their top priority. Most don’t. Breeding birds and shipping them to PetsMart or P.J.’s pets or Petland does not do a thing for conservation. Yes, plenty of breeders sell to pet stores. Some ONLY sell to pet stores.
I don’t expect breeders to give away birds, but frankly, I take excellent care of the bird I got for free.
Laurella
You say
“Frankly, I would like to know HOW one would expect people to cover the costs for food and housing of birds without selling some. To expect that birds being raised would never be sold would mean that ONLY the rich could have birds because they would be the only ones who could afford to keep them in a responsible manner.”
I truly admire that you have taken efforts to convince the aviculturist community to maintain sub species purity in captivity. To preserve a morphological form in captivity irrespective of whether it can eventually be returned to the wild is a worthwhile goal in itself though insignificant compared to actually saving the species in the wild.
To respond to your query as to only the rich being able to own birds, we are not talking about cars or houses here. This is not about equality of all human beings. It is about the parrots. If you cannot afford to keep Scarlet Macaws and breed them without selling young ones as pets and condemn them to a life as a single lonely pet indoors, and in multiple homes, why keep them at all?? As to the less wealthy I am sure, they can afford to keep the smaller parrots like the Bourke’s parrot. Owning a beautiful parrot is not a right but a privelege and the less wealthy human beings should consider themseleves priveleged even if they have a flock of budgies in their home.
There are 700 odd subspecies of parrots of which perhaps 600 can be kept safely in captivity (large indoor or outdoor aviaries) . Some like Psittacula longicauda or Agapornis swindernianus don’t fit in captivity. If each breeder were to dedicate himself to just one species/subspecies and keep just a maximum of 6 to 12 birds( depending on the flocking nature of the species involved) in large outdoor/indoor aviaries, I think the vast majority of conservationists and even animal welfare advocates can see eye to eye with private aviculture.
Laurella,
Perhaps calling you Cruella was over the top. I apologize for that. But…you haven’t addressed the issues that I did raise.
Well, in a way you did address a couple. I assume by your statement “Frankly, I would like to know HOW one would expect people to cover the costs for food and housing of birds without selling some” that you put the need of the parrot owner over that of the birds. If one can’t afford to keep birds without selling their offspring perhaps one shouldn’t own them. You are putting your own interest in keeping birds ahead of interests of the birds you are selling.
And from your comment on circuses I guess you find it ok that “Video footage taken between 2001 and 2006 of Ringling trainers and handlers shows that elephants were aggressively hooked, lame elephants were forced to perform and travel, and a trainer inflicted a bloody bullhook wound behind an elephant’s ear flap. Former Ringling employees that left the circus in 2006 and 2007 describe violent beatings as well as the routine abuse of elephants, horses, camels, and zebras” (source).
You also say “Bird breeders who raise birds for the purpose of maintaining a viable gene pool for the future do not raise “human-imprinted” birds”. Are all of your birds raised this way? Or do you raise human-imprinted birds for sale? It seems you are making an “ends justify the means argument” that raising some species and selling them is fine so long as you are also maintaining the gene pool of a subspecies. I don’t agree with that argument.
I don’t think that voluntary regulations work (we only need to look at the last 8 years to see that) and feel that bird breeders should be licensed, inspected, and strictly regulated (and the breeding of parrots for sale of pet birds should be banned so far as I am concerned though I don’t see that as likely to happen anytime soon). This is a position which anyone who has followed the course of legislation knows that you personally, and the organizations that you represent, have opposed regularly. I guess we’ll have to disagree.
Do you oppose or support the ban on importing wild-caught parrots? Because, so far as I understand it, banning of wild-caught parrots is one of the few laws that have truly helped the birds in the wild: while habitat destruction is horrible it is the capture and sale of wild birds that has done far more harm to many species than habitat destruction.
When you actually work with birds, you have a better understanding of their needs and their behaviors and how to provide the best care possible.
When folks push for regulation and inspection, they may not know that there are already regulations and inspections required in several states in the US: Colorado, Florida and Georgia.
Here is the problem. When you have regulations and inspections, you have INSPECTORS. Sometimes these inspectors are not too well trained, have NO CLUE about birds, and may actually dislike birds, but they are still inspectors. So, when they arrive at a facility, IF they are doing a good job, they will put on a set of new whole body suits and booties before entering any facility housing birds. Otherwise, they could bring disease in, or carry disease out.
Now, IF this inspection happens to be during the breeding season, there are birds that will totally freak out from such an apparition. They may scream, thrash about, destroy eggs and/or chicks and sometimes even their mates.
So, knowledgeable officials writing regulations should be avoiding inspection during the breeding season IF they are concerned about the welfare of the birds. But, that may not happen.
Now, if you have an inspector who is also an arrogant, “jack booted” bully who wants to throw his or her weight around, you have a person who is more interested in their own “performance” and in jerking around whoever he or she is inspecting. Those people do exist and they are a problem. Over the years I have heard some real sad stories in this regard.
I cannot say whether or not regulations make a difference for the quality of care of the birds in those states where permits are required. What I can say is that the DEDICATION of the individual bird breeder makes a difference in the quality of care of birds. Serious aviculturists are always learning; they continue to educate themselves about birds by attending conferences, seminars and working with a good veterinarian.
There will always be some substandard facilities and some individuals who provide substandard care, but those are certainly not in the majority. People who operate substandard facilities generally do not belong to the regular avicultural community, nor participate in conferences, seminars and such. Some do not even recognize that they are not providing proper care. They are ignorant about it. However, one must also acknowledge that ignorance can be problem within human society in regard to ALL human activities involving other humans or birds and animals…you will always have some “bad boys” and/or people who are ignorant.
Look at the two cases, one in Florida and one in the NE, of young mothers who fed their small babies a mixture of coconut milk, ground straw and a bunch of other wretched stuff…and the babies starved. These women were ignorant and apparently did not intend to be abusive or cruel. In a world with information readily available, you still find individuals who are ignorant. I doubt there is a cure for it. However, because ignorance exists, should we regulate everyone? Perhaps we should educate bird breeders instead of regulate them.
The defence of the breeding of non-domesticated species for them to be used as ‘pets’ remains unfounded. The pet trade has nothing to do with conservation; its function to to dupe a gullible public into thinking they can keep creatures like Moluccan cockatoos and scarlet macaws as ‘pets’ in their environmentally denuded living (sic) rooms. The purpose of this activity remains that it is for bird breeders to make money. There really is nothing more to say on this is there?
It is not *possible* (unless one rejects the processes of natural selection in favour of anthropogenic selection) to maintain any species in captivity. Captive breeding (no natural selection) results in degeneracy and then death of the original species as was found in the wild.
Where a creature can be bred in controlled ‘captive’ conditions for one or two generations only, then its survival is possible. This is how the kakapo, echo parakeet and perhaps Spix’s macaw are being ’saved’. But this requires them to have sufficient habitat to remain intact for them.
Clearly Laurella has little understanding of avian biology, conservation, population dynamics and natural selection. Darwin’s Origin of species makes a good starting point. Published in 1859, it’s been around long enough for anyone interested in how species come into being to take a look at it.
In addition to Darwinian aspects of biology, we now know of the *cultural* information held collectively by many animals which is a mainstay of their chances of survival. These cultural aspects, where information is tranferred from one generation to another through learnt behaviours is of key importance to the species’ survival. The mistakes made in attempts to ‘reintroduce’ the thick-billed parrot in Mexico/Arizona testify to the importance of understanding the details of a species’ *cultural knowledge* before attempting reintroductions. Captive populations have no such cultural information of local foods, local predators to be avoided; local roost sites which may be safe etc.
I say again; a species is not some fixed entity which can be ‘preserved’ like some concoction in a jam jar. It is bundle of living, dynamic, changing genes, needing the environment and natural selction to work on, to ensure the creatures’ viability.
These matters of scientific fact are what the avicultural community remain blind to; but their blindness is of course wilful.
There is also the case to be answered by aviculture regarding the problems of non-native species invasions, and the ecological effects these can have on native wildlife. Without bird dealers catching wild birds and transporting them around the world, merely as objects to be bought and sold, we would not have a ‘problem’ with monk parakeets in eastern USA, or ring-necked parakeets in Europe etc. Aviculture has a lot to answer for. Generally, I’m in favour of a presumption of innocence, but in the case of the commercial pet trade, I think such a presumption would be utterly naive, dangerous and stupid.
Greg Glendell
I find Mr. Glendell’s comments to be extremely one sided and completely uninformed about aviculture…unless he is speaking of aviculture as practiced in the UK, as I am not familiar with those practices.
As far as invasive species…WHICH exotic birds imported into the US or the UK have become “invasive species” and are presently doing harm to either the environment or to public health or wildlife?
Now, if you want to talk about tremendously detrimental non-native species, how about the domestic cat, both free roaming and feral? Can there be a more detrimental species in either the UK or anywhere in the USA, outside marine animals and plants??? Let’s get real here. Or should we mention starling and English sparrows brought from the UK many years ago and released into New York by folks who wanted a bit of England right here in the US? These are not exotics.
Clearly Mr. Glendell has little understanding of ANY of my background in biology, conservation, genetics, gene pools, etc. Does he think I am some uneducated back yard breeder? Looks like it. As I said in a previous post, I have been interested in conservation before most people reading this material were even born. I have seen the changes wrought by man, both in the US and in other countries. I understand that the combination of human population growth and multi-national corporation “development” in countries around the world are the main mechanisms of the juggernaught of habitat destruction.
Again, when it comes to conservation work, I think I am going to listen to the experts of the IUCN, including Dr. Ulysses Seal, when it comes to recommendations for saving avian species. I have seen some of the work of “conservation wannabees” who have sometimes done as much harm as good. I don’t believe in going down those roads.
As regards the attempted re-introduction of the Thickbill parrots, it would have made a TREMENDOUS difference IF the US officials in charge of the project had proceeded with at least a minimum of intelligence. But, instead, they took wild caught caged birds with clipped wings, glued feathers onto the cut ones, not even from the same species, gave the birds no time to re-acclimate to flying, since they were caged in small cages and out of condition if not overweight, and on top of that, they were released in the Fall during the height of hawk migration through the release area. Now, how many difficulties could one put into one release situation and expect it to be successful??? The aviculturists holding these birds for the government urged them not to release the birds until they were properly prepared for release by allowing them to grow out their wings, placing them in a large flight in the release area, and releasing them when there was less of a threat from the hawks. It actually appeared that the officials in charge of the Thickbill re-introduction project wanted to doom it to failure. They certainly arranged the details to accomplish that.
As to the ability of the parrot species to adjust to challenges, new environments, and successfully acclimate to an area from which they did not originate, but which contains the food and shelter items they need, I would like to remind Mr. Glendell that science tells us that parrots have been on the planet far longer than human primates. Obviously, this was accomplished due to their great intelligence and flexibility, along with their curiosity and ability to learn from experience. Obviously, any re-introduction programs would need to be planned by those familiar with the species and with the needs of the species and with the condition of the environment into which they were to be released. To my knowledge, only foolish people would try to introduce domestic raised parrots into their country of origin without doing the kind of research that would indicate the project was likely to be successful.
For instance, the US program on the Puerto Rican parrot became a lot more successful when the biologists in charge made a point of learning a few avicultural facts. Then they proceeded to find a way to “educate” the young birds to be released so that they would know hawks were dangerous. They used “hawk repellent vests” on example birds that were released. When a hawk attacked a parrot, the parrot screamed and escaped. All the other youngsters in the large flight immediately got the message…hawks are dangerous. And, the vest wearing bird was not harmed. Now, that is an intelligent and inventive method for educating young birds in an island situation where their population is under threat and to release them without their knowing about hawks would mean their death.
Then, there are also projects wherein the environment of the parrots or other wild birds is enhanced by the re-planting of native trees and plants, and by the return of wetlands where they previously existed.
Aviculturists have provided the field biologists with information of importance so that they are able to be more successful in their work. This kind of support has included information on the development of young birds, the behavior of mated pairs, and research on what kind of tracking device will be light enough and strong enough to remain on the bird for a couple years without harming the bird. (Refer: Joanne Abramson and the Buffons macaw project by RARE Center.)
And, it seems I must remind the reader that not all birds produced by bird breeders are sent off to be pets. When we work to put together a viable gene pool for a species, we trade or sell off the excess birds, those that are not needed to maintain the gene pool.
Lastly, I do not think that there is only ONE way to do anything. Humans can learn and can find the best ways to conserve the variety of avian species. I choose to work on the positives for the future of exotic birds, including parrots. To do that, I don’t think it wise to exclude the potential help that might be achieved through captive breeding of species. And, I continue to support conservation projects in the country of origin for the birds presently in the wild.
Hmm…..
Maybe the strength of an argument is in inverse proportion to the amount of words used in attempting to justify it…..
Greg Glendell
@Greg: Ha!
Mr. Glendell, I doubt this back and forth is about the STRENGTH of an argument, it is more likely about a dramatic difference of opinion about conservation of species and how that can best be accomplished.
You have an opinion based on your own background of experience and education, and I have an opinion based on my own background of experience and education.
Doubtless, there are many individuals who share your opinion, just as there are many individuals who share mine. It looks like we will simply have to agree to disagree.
The main point is…extinction is forever. I believe we can all agree that extinction is something we don’t want to happen to the birds.
I agree with Laurella and disagree with Greg in that preserving the morphological form of a species, even if it is not subjected to the forces of natural selection is a worthwhile goal in itself. As I have mentioned earlier, it is secondary to habitat conservation, halting the trade of wild birds and any other steps to ensure survival in the wild.
For example if modern avicultural knowledge was available in the 19th century, a group of dedicated aviculturists could have preserved the Newton’s Parakeet(Psittacula exsul) and the Seychelles Parakeet(Psittacula wardi) . Assuming that the aviculturists had refrained from extensive mutation breeding or hybridization as is happening with African lovebirds(Agapornis sp) Rosellas (Platycercus sp), we could at least have a glimpse of what these species looked like.
However for this to happen, an aviculturist and his/her family should dedicate oneself to just one species of bird or parrot. Laws should be passed to restrict ownership of birds to one species per human family and a maximum of 3 to 6 breeding pairs. As mentioned Page 255 in Mira Tweti’s book “Of Parrots and People” no aviculturist is interested in breeding around 29 species of parrots- “small parrots from the inner valleys of Colombia and Ecuador and the coastal forests of Brazil and the Caribbean islands” which are severely threatened in the wild but have no commercial value in captivity.
This gives away their argument that they are genuinely concerned about conservation. Therefor there should be an additional tax for people wanting to possess charismatic birds like the Eclectus Parrot, African Grey, any of the Larger Macaws/Cockatoos which could be plumbed into conservation of natural habitat.
Breeding parrots for sale into the pet trade particularly as single human bonded pet birds should also be banned. But that is perhaps unlikely to happen soon.
Regarding specializing in one species. That is already happening. Many aviculturists may start with a broad collection of species but eventually narrow it down to one or two of the species in which they have a greater interest. In my case it was eclectus parrots. When I started working with these birds, there was a lack of information about the subspecies, about proper care and about their behavior. To me this was challenging and interesting.
In the early nineties, when the zoo conservation experts were questioned about the parrots most likely to go extinct in captivity, they said vasa parrots. So, the non-profit group with whom I work decided to collect and breed these parrots to save them in captivity.
Now we have a collection of about fifty Greater Vasas. We have also learned a lot about their behavior and their care in the process. We have the birds set up to parent rear their young.
As regards creating regulations about who should have what bird and who should be allowed to breed a species, I don’t think that is ever a good idea. Some of the more creative and intelligent bird breeders simply would not want to be bound by ridiculous rules put in place by some ignorant-about-birds official sitting behind a desk in DC who happened to graduate from university with a degree in biology and conservation. This would be dangerous for the birds and very limiting for the breeder. Remember, much of what has been learned in the past thirty years about parrot breeding has been learned and transmitted by bird breeders who are INTERESTED in the birds. They were not regulated, nor governed by rules as to how to do that. They were directed by an interest in the birds themselves. Bird breeding is a never ending process of learning and innovation. Regulations would have a crippling effect on this process. Advanced avicultural techniques have only been in place since the late seventies, so we have a long way to go and we do not want to freeze interest or effort with foolish regulations.
Aviculture is not agriculture where you are producing a product to be consumed by the public. Those products apparently do require regulations to make sure the products are safe and meet standards. Birds that are produced for future breeding do not need to be inspected by the government in order to protect the public.
Often people who believe that government regulations are helpful in providing for some positive outcome are people who have had very little contact with government inspectors or regulators. In my case, I happen to know TWO government inspectors very well. Both of them say that they see NO benefit to be obtained by the regulation of aviculture. In fact, they see serious problems that would occur as a result.
Remember, most bird breeding is conducted NOT as a business, but as an activity similar to a hobby, a life-style if you will. People who love to be around birds become involved in keeping and eventually breeding birds. It is a fun activity and very rewarding. I doubt if anything is more appealing than a baby bird growing up, learning to explore the world, interacting with its own species and also with humans, experimenting with toys and foods, and flying. Our birds love to fly.
I would also remind readers that we do live in the USA where our Constitution provides for certain freedoms. All these proposals to regulate, restrict, ban, and prohibit are not exactly a fulfillment of the basic rights of US citizens who are RESPONSIBLE bird owners. And, I stress the word responsible.
Too often we hear from anti-bird ownership folks who endlessly repeat the mantra that birds are not being properly cared for in captivity, that they belong in the wild. While that is a bird’s natural habitat, the wild, it was also human’s natural habitat…when we lived in the jungles and at the edge of rivers and slept in caves. Because that was our “natural” habitat, do we recommend that humans return to those habitats? I think not. Similarly, other creatures, birds and animals, can live quite well in a civilized world, and additionally, live much longer. Just as early man had a brief and brutal life, so life in the wild for birds is brief and brutal. The world of Walt Disney does not exist. Rather, the reality is predation by hawks and snakes and loss of habitat, food and shelter for many avian species.
Now, as to Mira Tweti, this is a person with an agenda. Just because she quotes many scientists in the introductory chapters to her book, does not mean she is some kind of expert on bird keeping or that her ideas should be taken seriously. She is OUTSIDE of the bird community, not a member of it. The members of the avicultural community are the actual STAKEHOLDERS here and they are the ones to decide how, when, where and what to do about bird keeping and preserving captive species for the future. Tweti did not consult with these people. She has no knowledge of what is happening now in the aviaries of serious aviculturists. It is arrogant of her to speak about WHAT should be done with birds in aviculture. It would be like me, with an interest in human medicine, writing about what doctors and researchers should be doing in their medical work! I am sorry, but recommendations about future bird keeping should be within the area of those who have the knowledge, not someone whose previously published articles clearly indicate she is operating under the animal rights agenda.
Tweti and her animal rights colleagues would like the government to regulate birds because THEN these folks would have a means of influencing and/or exerting control over bird keeping.
CONTROL is the real agenda here, not the welfare of the birds.
Laurella, finally you address the issue this post was about - “rights” - and you predictably use the American Constitution to justify owning parrots (which amendment was that in eh?). The fallback for you and the NRA and every other person who cannot truly justify their positions…
I’ve think most of us will have had enough of your perpetual bleating that only breeders know anything about birds, that conservationists don’t know what they’re talking about, that your view is the only one worth listening to etc etc so I’m closing this comment thread. I think we’ve left it open long enough for you to repeat your mantras, and thoroughly alienate birders all over the planet…
And if you don’t like it, tough.