Thinking...

[Daema]

Also, if you love animals, I doubt you will be happy as a zoo vet. Zoos are not good places for animals and, if you love them, it breaks your heart to see how badly they are kept.

Excuse me? I don't think I asked for your opinion on my dream. You are NOT going to crush my dream. You think you always get happy sunshine rainbows? You don't. There's always misery in the world, whether it's yours or someone else's. At least I accept the reality of things.

I've already weighed the negatives. Since I was a young child I wanted to be a veterinarian, and as a teenager I naturally abandoned my child dreams and tried to deviate, but in the end I came back to it because it is my true calling. I'm not happy in a job if there aren't animals around. In fact, I detest any job I do if there aren't animals.

For a while I humored myself, thinking about becoming an Equine Veterinarian since I lived in Kentucky. Horses aren't my passion, although they're beautiful, but they make good money in the horse capital of the world... but there's the ugly I weighed in. I KNEW that if I went there I would face majority of equine owners favoring shooting their horses in the face and collecting life insurance than actually fixing them.

That's not my calling, though. I thought being a normal veterinarian would be enough... but it's not... and even as a normal veterinarian you'd face people that would rather pawn off their animals instead of pay the vet bill to fix them.

My calling is to exotics. I'm an exotic enthusiast, to a point where majority of my pets are exotics and I frequently research exotic laws in the lower 48 states of America so I know what's acceptable and what's not. Throughout my whole life, the only content I can EVER read without falling asleep is any content regarding animals, and I do, because I enjoy learning about them, their anatomy, common diseases, and the obscure illnesses. In the next 5 - 10 years I aspire to own a Coatimundi. It will be a tough job, but I know the facts, I know the care, I've read books, websites, forums... I've been preparing for YEARS and now I'm at the stage of saving up for outdoor and indoor enclosures.

I'm actually a supporter of zoos because I know a lot of zoos actually take in illegal exotics because they are not suitable for re-release, being raised by humans. I'm very well aware that the only way to properly care for them the way mother nature does would take MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of dollars, dollars that zoos simply don't have anymore because times are rough, I KNOW THIS.... The LEAST I can do is try to help them when they're ill, try to make their lives a little less miserable. Besides, take a good look at yourself. All of us here own parrots. You think we can match mother nature? No, but here we are, and we love them like our own and wouldn't give them up for the world. No one can match mother nature, the best we can do is try to mimic it for those that we've 'tamed', to the best of our capabilities and with what resources are available.

Crying about it isn't going to solve anything. Wake up and smell the coffee, we live in a MESSED UP world, the least you can do is HELP instead of CRY about it. You're not crushing my dream. From here on out I will not be responding to this thread or anything regarding it. I will be doing things the way I want, plain and simple. I will take into consideration of what's been said and go from there.

 

[Sadieladie1994]

I agree with what you

Most people already know how I feel about breeding .. so I won't get into that debate here.

However, I will address one statement you made in your original post. You won't initially be breeding, but buying babies out of nest and raising them.

What about that breeder you're buying from? I can tell you that most people who sell wholesale, who sell out of nest unweaned .. are NOT good/reputable breeders .. sorry, but that is a truth. Good/reputable breeders usually prefer to raise their babies themselves, and not let them go wholesale where they have no control.

You'd have to carefully research that breeder and their ethics. That's just as important as how you rear the birds and how you screen potential buyers. If you're buying from a mass mill breeder, you doing a lot more harm than good, no matter what your end "good intentions" are. Supporting a "mill" ... that's just flat out wrong .. and many mills are the ones who sell out of nest in bulk.

Just make 100% sure you know where your birds are coming from .. please. In my eyes, and in many others .. the worst thing in the world is supporting some mass producing mill of any kind .. be it puppies, kitties or parrots. They are the slugs and slime of the animal world .. please, don't give them one cent of your money or support them and their horrific practices.

That's all I'll say about this issue.

I agree with what you are saying about buying from a breeder. The folks I know that do this have formed a relationship with the breeder. The breeders may not want to deal with the public, don't have an outlet to the public or have such a nature that being with the public is not a good thing. I have worked with the "in between" person who was excellent selling and raising babies. She had babies very young. I fed a LOT of babies of different species and found the interaction with the babies and the public the best. Many owners came back to show their birds, buy toys and supplies and talked about what was new in the bird world It kind of became a casual club and I I saw kids 10 or 12 who were excellent with their birds such as yellow collard macaws, Meyers, goffins, severe. The birds adored their owners. Boy lots of things to think about.

Regarding vet school. Some harder to get into than med school. Some cater to their geographic area (in large city vs country). Specific lower level degree can make a difference on getting into a school. I don't know how far you checked into this so just a thought to check into this area.

Your "hi priced" birds can be difficult to raise as I am sure you know with at least one of the species you mentioned with a high mortality rate at weaning.

Wish you the best in your endeavor

 

[macawpower58]

I think you're being a little too sensitive. I myself am all for good breeders for parrots to dogs to cats to ..etc. I abhor those that are in it for the money only.

I also don't think anyone was trying to crush your dream, they were out of their heart explaining what to them would be a hard painful road to travel. Me, I think being a zoo vet would be thrilling and exciting. Yes I agree you'll see things that may make you cry, but you'll see them in the day to day dog/cat veterinarian offices too.

If I was financially free from worries and years younger, I'd love to breed too. I have to give a hand to those that strive to keep species and breeds pure and bred for what they're meant for.

You'll never please everyone, and some of the rescue folk are so against any kind of breeding, they come across as very mean. They've just seen more than most and are doing what their hearts tell them to. All you can do is follow and do what your heart tells you to.

 

[petiteoiseau]

Excuse me? I don't think I asked for your opinion on my dream. You are NOT going to crush my dream. You think you always get happy sunshine rainbows? You don't. There's always misery in the world, whether it's yours or someone else's. At least I accept the reality of things.

I've already weighed the negatives. Since I was a young child I wanted to be a veterinarian, and as a teenager I naturally abandoned my child dreams and tried to deviate, but in the end I came back to it because it is my true calling. I'm not happy in a job if there aren't animals around. In fact, I detest any job I do if there aren't animals.

For a while I humored myself, thinking about becoming an Equine Veterinarian since I lived in Kentucky. Horses aren't my passion, although they're beautiful, but they make good money in the horse capital of the world... but there's the ugly I weighed in. I KNEW that if I went there I would face majority of equine owners favoring shooting their horses in the face and collecting life insurance than actually fixing them.

That's not my calling, though. I thought being a normal veterinarian would be enough... but it's not... and even as a normal veterinarian you'd face people that would rather pawn off their animals instead of pay the vet bill to fix them.

My calling is to exotics. I'm an exotic enthusiast, to a point where majority of my pets are exotics and I frequently research exotic laws in the lower 48 states of America so I know what's acceptable and what's not. Throughout my whole life, the only content I can EVER read without falling asleep is any content regarding animals, and I do, because I enjoy learning about them, their anatomy, common diseases, and the obscure illnesses. In the next 5 - 10 years I aspire to own a Coatimundi. It will be a tough job, but I know the facts, I know the care, I've read books, websites, forums... I've been preparing for YEARS and now I'm at the stage of saving up for outdoor and indoor enclosures.

I'm actually a supporter of zoos because I know a lot of zoos actually take in illegal exotics because they are not suitable for re-release, being raised by humans. I'm very well aware that the only way to properly care for them the way mother nature does would take MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of dollars, dollars that zoos simply don't have anymore because times are rough, I KNOW THIS.... The LEAST I can do is try to help them when they're ill, try to make their lives a little less miserable. Besides, take a good look at yourself. All of us here own parrots. You think we can match mother nature? No, but here we are, and we love them like our own and wouldn't give them up for the world. No one can match mother nature, the best we can do is try to mimic it for those that we've 'tamed', to the best of our capabilities and with what resources are available.

Crying about it isn't going to solve anything. Wake up and smell the coffee, we live in a MESSED UP world, the least you can do is HELP instead of CRY about it. You're not crushing my dream. From here on out I will not be responding to this thread or anything regarding it. I will be doing things the way I want, plain and simple. I will take into consideration of what's been said and go from there.

It was also my lifelong dream to work in a zoo and after many years of life interfering (husbands, children, career, work, etc), when I had cancer, I decided to change my life around and do all the things I had always dreamed of doing and did not. So I quit my job, took courses and exams and did my thesis on quakers and I got a job at a very well regarded, small, local zoo. I was so happy!!! And I did not last a year. Unless you work in a zoo, you don't see the reality of it. They only show you what they want you to see and hide the rest. But you see the 'rest' when you work there, and the only people who last are the ones that don't really care because, when you do, you can't take it.
If you think this is a messed-up world when it comes to animals, you will definitely see how really messed-up it is when you work for a zoo.

 

[gibsongrrrl]

I often wonder why so many folks are against the breeding of parrots yet they have them? These feathered bundles of joy are not native to the United States so they had to come from somewhere....if there are no breeders, there will be no parrots to enjoy for us or for our grandchildren. Just my two cents.

the reason I have birds is because weeble wasn't wanted by her owner anymore and relinquished her to the avian clinic I worked at and the Beeper was found by my neighbor, seemingly set free as nobody was looking for her in the 7 months I searched for her family. I didn't seek out either bird. If there weren't birds out there that needed a home because someone bought them as a baby from a breeder and didn't want them anymore, I would happily live a bird free life. I don't see that happening anytime soon, though.

 

[macawpower58]

Bird free life! Nope, not for me. Sadly, I'm one of those who am in it for me. I love birds, thus I have them. 100% selfish on my part. I can't even say I 'rescued' mine. I didn't, I put an order in for them!

It wasn't until after I'd owned 2 birds that I even realized there was a bird problem. I never even thought about it before. I wouldn't mind helping out with conservation more, but to be truthful, I have birds because it makes me happy.

Someday they may not be legal to own. But for now they are, and I've taken full advantage of it.

It's a good thing most places don't allow big cats!

 

[LaSelva]

petiteoiseau, even outside of the context of this thread I think what you're saying here is very true.....

"Then there is the fact that nobody can actually keep them all their lives healthy and happy as human pets in a normal household so, even if there wasn't a overpopulation problem, this alone would stop me......the 'selling only to good homes' it's a great sentiment but it's not realistic. Everybody is full of love, enthusiasm and good intentions with the new baby bird and everybody promises to do everything they are asked to do - but most people get tired of trying and even the ones that don't cannot guarantee that their life will not change drastically."

The highlighted part reminds me of so many excited "bringing baby home" threads on various fourms. That is, in contrast to threads celebrating (for example) decades with pet bird.

Lets face it, there's no such thing as a clear conscience when it comes to wild animals as commodities (or, I feel there shouldn't be). I think that's what people try to achieve when they convince themselves they are "a good breeder" (whatever that is) or, "not in it for the money." Arbitrary terms that don't seem to amount to much. Who's to say what a persons motivations are? Large scale breeders also have a passion for it (Voren comes to mind but he's not the only one). And the reason they can produce so many birds as well as sell to anyone who wants to buy one is because they truly belive that a parrot can be a household pet and in any home environment (I admit, I find that belief astounding...but they truly feel that way). These are their beliefs so I almost can't blame them for their volume of "production." It's the ones who believe anything less that have the problem. It seems they know what they're doing is on the unethical side but they continue to do it....maybe because they justify it to themselves in the aforementioned ways?

"Bird free life! Nope, not for me. Sadly, I'm one of those who am in it for me. I love birds, thus I have them. 100% selfish on my part. I can't even say I 'rescued' mine."

Well, you're honest....LOL. I initially acquired my larger birds because I (my wife as well) grew up with canaries and budgies and am a nurturing person. Even though my past is that of a former martial artist/kickboxer perhaps even "tough guy." That's one aspect of myself. But, I've always loved "life." The concept of life. In other words, nature (and that includes all biodiversity). I even enjoy doing my own landscaping and gardening, watching what I've planted grow. Again, those trees, plants, etc. have an emotional meaning for me because I've nurtured them. I love my birds because I've gotten to know them aside from fulfilling their initial purpose of something to care for. But the point I want to make is that I don't consider a life without owning birds to be a "bird free life." Not in the least. For one, through my volunteer work at Audubon I've gotten to experience close up, care for, and help train birds of prey without having to become a falconer. I've also grown to realise that I've got birds outside my window, at the local nature preserves, etc. I can observe the beauty of nature in many places and feel fulfilled by it. I've been to Peru and Costa Rica on parrot-watching ecotours and my heart soared at seeing these majestic creatures in their own beautiful habitat. As well as felt sadness at saying goodbye. No way I'd call THAT a bird free life. On the contrary, it's the bird experience of a lifetime! Nor is it as inacessible as people think it is. CR is three hours away from Florida. An hour and a half drive from the capitol is Carrara National Park. Upon entering the park one can hear the unmistakable sounds of Scarlet Macaws. If over the coming years myself and my birds part ways, for whatever tragic or emotional reasons, I don't think I will take on the huge responsibility again. I won't be a part of the industry in any way. I'll greatly cherish having had them, gotten to know them, and have that memory forever. But, instead I'll travel. Observe, photograph, learn and simply enjoy being in their world. It's one lesson among many that owning them has led me to. That I can be just as happy appreciating wildlife where it belongs.

 

[petiteoiseau]

Bird free life! Nope, not for me. Sadly, I'm one of those who am in it for me. I love birds, thus I have them. 100% selfish on my part. I can't even say I 'rescued' mine. I didn't, I put an order in for them!

It wasn't until after I'd owned 2 birds that I even realized there was a bird problem. I never even thought about it before. I wouldn't mind helping out with conservation more, but to be truthful, I have birds because it makes me happy.

Someday they may not be legal to own. But for now they are, and I've taken full advantage of it.

It's a good thing most places don't allow big cats!

I love birds, too. And that's why I think it's not good to keep them as pets UNLESS we are talking a domesticated species (like canaries), an undomesticated one that either has easy to fulfill physical and psychological needs (like budgies in an aviary setting and kept under strict husbandry) or is unable to fend for itself (like handicapped).

And I agree with David, for anybody who loves birds, it's completely possible to nurture this love (becoming a wild bird rehabber been an easy and very rewarding way).

 

[95talongirl]

Also, if you love animals, I doubt you will be happy as a zoo vet. Zoos are not good places for animals and, if you love them, it breaks your heart to see how badly they are kept.

You also have to realize that some of the propaganda put out there by the various "animal rights" groups are not exactly truthful. Most use very old footage in their "undercover" crap. They would like nothing more than to see an end to pet ownership. As a pet owner, this doesn't sit well with me, and I don't like the tyrannical ways they go about business. Those people live in misery and want nothing more than to bring everyone into their miserable, negative, life. Not to mention the rampid hypocrisy in those groups Animals do add joy to our lives, and in a good relationship, the animals enjoy their human companions just as much!. Like everything in this world, there are good places/people and bad places/people. That's just life. There's organizations/zoos/rescues out there that do good for the animals, and provide a place for ones that cannot live in the wild.

But this is off topic, even though the nature of the thread lends it to go these direction.

I am neutral on this topic, as I don't like the extremes of either end of the spectrum. But there's a place for everything, and the key is moderation, education, and just loving what you do.

 

[Shastasmom]

Probably off topic a tad...but here goes...

Hmmm let me get this straight... A question was posed in the "Breeders Boulevard" forum and instead of offering helpful insight, many posts are from folks that are anti bird breeding? When I joined this group, it was my impression that all were welcome. But as I have navigated thru the various threads, and forums, it seems to me that bird breeders really are not despite how well we take care of our birds, educate the public, etc. I know for an absolute fact that I take better care of my birds, ALL of them, then many people I speak with daily on the phone answering their questions about species, diet., etc. Most are shocked that I feed cooked grains, fruits, veggies, every day to EVERY bird I have (breeding pairs included), much less that ALL my birds have names and large cages or flights and toys. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive....who knows.

 

[petiteoiseau]

You also have to realize that some of the propaganda put out there by the various "animal rights" groups are not exactly truthful. Most use very old footage in their "undercover" crap. They would like nothing more than to see an end to pet ownership. As a pet owner, this doesn't sit well with me, and I don't like the tyrannical ways they go about business. Those people live in misery and want nothing more than to bring everyone into their miserable, negative, life. Not to mention the rampid hypocrisy in those groups Animals do add joy to our lives, and in a good relationship, the animals enjoy their human companions just as much!. Like everything in this world, there are good places/people and bad places/people. That's just life. There's organizations/zoos/rescues out there that do good for the animals, and provide a place for ones that cannot live in the wild.

But this is off topic, even though the nature of the thread lends it to go these direction.

I am neutral on this topic, as I don't like the extremes of either end of the spectrum. But there's a place for everything, and the key is moderation, education, and just loving what you do.

The reply was not based on propaganda but on personal experience. Besides, only PETA people are against all pets, not all animal rights people. I am against PETA but VERY active in animal rights and what you are saying is simply not true of everybody (this sounds A LOT like the kind of thing PIJAC would say every time somebody proposes a better animal cruelty law). I have no problem with people having pets, I dislike the term 'pet' but have no problem with people offering animals a home with them. I just want the ownership and living conditions regulated so all animals have the legal right to be treated well and are not just possessions to do with as their owners wish as it is now. I also have no problem with organizations providing places where animals that cannot live in the wild can, I have a problem with organizations keeping them in bad conditions or exploiting them for money.

I completely disagree with your last sentence though... Moderation is not always a good thing, arsenic in moderation will still kill you in the long run. Education is only good if the person wants to learn. And loving what you do does not preclude evil. Serial killers love what they do.

 

[petiteoiseau]

Probably off topic a tad...but here goes...

Hmmm let me get this straight... A question was posed in the "Breeders Boulevard" forum and instead of offering helpful insight, many posts are from folks that are anti bird breeding? When I joined this group, it was my impression that all were welcome. But as I have navigated thru the various threads, and forums, it seems to me that bird breeders really are not despite how well we take care of our birds, educate the public, etc. I know for an absolute fact that I take better care of my birds, ALL of them, then many people I speak with daily on the phone answering their questions about species, diet., etc. Most are shocked that I feed cooked grains, fruits, veggies, every day to EVERY bird I have (breeding pairs included), much less that ALL my birds have names and large cages or flights and toys. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive....who knows.

Of course many posts are from anti-breeding people when the subject is breeding! We are the equivalent of the temperance people that dressed all in black and banged drums in front of bars during the teetotalism movement -LOL- Yes, everybody IS welcome and that's why everybody is allowed to give an opinion as long as they are polite.

You are obviously a very good bird keeper and sound like an awesome breeder but, as good as that is for your birds, it's still not helping the ever increasing overpopulation problem we have.

 

[melissasparrots]

Hmm, I just have to say, I don't go on rescue boards and say rescue sucks, never get a rescue, everyone should buy from breeders. I try to go for a more moderate approach considering the situation and the personalities of all involved.

Also, I know people that work in zoos, that have volunteered at zoos and that have worked in animal research in the development of vaccines for dog and cat viruses. Some of those people love their work, love the animals they care for even if they don't always agree with every decision their employer makes. I also know people that work in labs that have pet dogs and cats at home and have to sometimes euthanize animals in the name of research to produce good vaccines to save more dogs and cats. Some can't take having to be the one to euthanize an animal or make it suffer, even for the greater good and consequently don't do that kind of work even if they don't disagree with what is being done. Others have no problem with it. I think seeing animals suffering affects people differently and its not always in a cold hearted way. Personally, I'm very grateful I can give my dog a vaccine and be fairly confident she is safe from that virus and that polyoma vaccine is available for birds if I chose to give it or ever had a problem with the virus.

And finally, I think its innate for some people to associate with animals. There has been some interesting research that I haven't had time to look into a whole lot basically indicating that humans and domesticated animals may have evolved together. That the partnership and eventual domestication may have influenced human evolution. And so, I almost wonder if its somewhat instinctive for our kind to want to hangout with animals and even breed them. We all know dogs have been partnered with humans for thousands of years. Falconry while not always nice to the bird has also been done for thousands of years and even contributed when done responsibly to the saving of the peregrine falcon and other raptors. A young hawk if caught and trained by a falconer has a much higher likelihood of surviving its first year than if left to its own devises. If then released, it can go back to nature and contribute to its species a more experienced hunter and having been supported through the big learning curve of the first year. You can do anything poorly and with poor intentions and the animals suffer. Or, you can do the same thing well and have a positive impact. Almost everything we do has an upside and a downside. I don't see ourselves as being outside of nature. We are a part of it and consequently can choose to have a positive or negative impact on the way we use the earth and our animal resources. I have no problem breeding them for companionship. However, I'm also willing to admit that not everyone is a good home for a parrot. So, its up to the good breeders to educate people and choose wisely who they sell to.

We also need rescues because lets face it, sometimes people just die unexpectedly. I don't plan on getting killed in a car accident this afternoon and if so, some rescue is probably going to get an influx of birds. Does that mean they lived a horrible life, and their life will suck forever more? Not if the rescue does its job. As with breeders, some rescues are good, some are bad. In all things there is a trade off. The goal should be to minimize the negative and increase the positive. However, that will mean different things to different people. And therein lies the controversy.

 

[LaSelva]

Yes, new research concludes that we changed wolves and they changed us. But this doesn't imply the same relationship for other speices - and the highlighted parts show what I mean.

from Temple Grandin:

"If Dr. Wayne is right, wolves and people were together at the point when homo sapiens had just barely evolved from homo erectus. When wolves and people joined together people only had a few rough tools to their name, and they lived in very small nomadic bands that probably weren't any more socially complicated than a band of chimpanzees. Some researchers think these early humans may not even have had language. This means that when wolves and people first started keeping company they were on a lot more equal footing than dogs and people are today. Basically, two differnet species with complementary skills teamed up together, something that had never happened before and has really never happened since. "

"A group of Australian anthropologists believes that during all those years when early humans were associating with wolves they learned to act and think like wolves. Wolves hunted in groups; humans didn't. Wolves had complex social structures; humans didn't. Wolves had loyal same-sex and nonkin friendships; humans probably didn't, judging by the lack of same-sex and nonkin friendships in every other primate species today (the main relationship for chimpanzees is parent-child). Wolves were highly territorial; humans probably weren't - again, judging by how nonterritorial all other primates are today. By the time these early people became truly modern they learned to do all these wolfie things. When you think about how different we are from other primates, you seee how doglike we are. "

Lets remember that throughout our historic relationship with parrots we've "taken" them from their trees. Some of our keeping methods have actually been abusive (giving them alcohol and beating their heads to induce human speech) and in some areas they were even eaten as a delicacy. It hasn't been a symbiotic nor a willing relationship on their part. I can also point to entire capes and headdresses made entirely of parrot feathers by tribal people, anywhere from the ancient Maya to the Asmat tribes of New Guinea, as a significant part of our history with parrots.

But the point is I don't think that anything said thus far would support the conclusion that it's innate or instinctive for us to breed them. But I feel that you know that's a stretch and are just thinking out loud. I'm open to further reasoning as always. I personally don't see it as logical or representative of facts to take a speicfic relationship we've had with a mammal, one that shares our social hierarchy, and other communicative commonalities, understands our body language, etc. and generalize it to include all other wildlife. Nor does it do parrots the justice of understanding them as unique in their own characteristics.

Falconry is also very different from parrot-keeping and one cannot really compare the two for the sake of this thread, in purpose or methods. Granted, the methods of training (specifically Operant Conditioning) are the same. But these are universal and also apply to marine mammals and other performing animals. Falconry requires first, a permit. Then an apprenticeship under a mentor and eventually a license. It is governed by laws and they dictate everything from proper housing, to diet, to the amount of exercise the bird must be given. Falconry is a utilitarian relationship where the bird remains wild and releaseable. Birds of prey are not household pets nor family members - as falconers do not call their birds "fabies" or "fids." Human imprinting or any "identity-crisis" on the part of the bird is avoided. All of this is what makes what you speak of, in terms of re-release and survival, possible. Parrots are genetically wild but we imprint them to the point where they can't survive if released. In addition, many of their natural and genetically driven behaviors are unwelcome in the average home - which (even if one attempts to train) is typically not a good environment conducive to behavior modification attempts. Considering other (controlled circumstances) under which wild animals are trained the average home is often too busy, boisterous and inconsistent. So, the bird is pushed aside or eventually relinquished. The rest is history...and we all know it.

Proper methods of parrot-keeping are as subjective and variable as their individual homes. And that brings me to this thread. I don't think that the reactions to the OP constitute a negative response to a simple quesiton, as some seem to see it. The OP asked a subjective question. In particular, what constitutes a good breeder. Which, probably unknowingly, immediately points the finger (and blame) away from OP and onto others as the source of the problem they will now contribute to. A preemptive defense I suppose. But I think what really prompted the reactions was the admission of, "I'm going to do something wrong, but so what - I enjoy it, and anyway, the world is full of problems." That's how it came accross and I think is what prompted a huge "wtf? reaction from many who read it.

Considering "good breeders." Howard Voren will readily admit he's a "capitalist." It's what he calls himself. He's bred and continues to do so, thousands of parrots. He believes that nobody who wants a parrot should be denied. Again, his words. Do you think he considers himslef a bad breeder? Nope, on the contrary. He considers himself a pioneer and major innovator of psittaculture and it's methods. IMO he's fascinating, he's travelled the world to procure his stock (and has the stories that go along with it) and he produces happy healthy birds. I've played with many of his Bubblegum Blue Amazons at Marc Morrone's store and they're healthy and beautiful. Voren, and anyone who's spoken to him will back this up, is always available to educate and answer questions. It's good business and he's got many repeat clients. He also believes in and practices selling unweaned birds to pet stores -where the process is completed.

This is just to illustrate that we can't adopt a sujective notion to alleviate our own guilt and point fingers. I have no problem with anyone doing what's within their legal rights. So I don't care who breeds, but it seems like an attempted use of the (LOL) Jedi Mind Trick to try to tell someone you're "contributing to a problem but in a good way."

 

[LaSelva]

Imprinting: a hard-wired learning mechanism in which there is a permanent association during a sensitive period . This is of an innate behavior pattern to specific objects which, from then on, trigger that behavior pattern.

So we are on the same page, because I'd also like to comment on this:

"And contrary to some of the ARish propaganda out there about co-parenting or leaving chicks with parents, in the species I raise, I have not seen any difference in pet quality or long term behaviors of a bird hand-fed from day one vs. parent raised the whole way or parent raised to 4 weeks. "

I understand that that's your personal experience. But I can tell you with certainty that falconers have noticed, over the centuries, that there are differences in the behaviors of birds that are naturally imprinted vs. human imprinted. Granted, these can be two extremes with a grey area in between. As altricial birds we can make the analogy to parrots. And I think that when one considers the behavioral issues that parrot owners commonly deal with the analogy gains strength. To begin, a disadvantage of a properly imprinted bird of prey (one raised by another bird) would be it's fear response. Once a chick imprints on a parent it develops a natural fear of non-parent objects. Which sounds alot like what you posted here:

"Or, they might just not turn out to be good pets if you wait too long to pull for hand-feeding. A lot of parrotlets don't make good pets if not pulled for hand-feeding before about 14 days old. After that, you will have a higher percentage that just doesn't want to be pets. Always hanging out in the back of the cage. The last one to volunteer for hand-feeding and as soon as its weaned, doesn't want a thing to do with people."


At the other extreme, when a falcon is human imprinted these just a few noted problems:

-Excessive screaming
-Becomes territorial, this can mean guarding food
-May attack in jealousy
-Becomes overly dependent
-Sexually stimulated by various unnatural objects
-Begging or courtship behaviors directed toward human.
-Unnatural respnoses to their own species - may kill same species if placed together

These are basic and when expanded upon in detail it's obvious that many parrot owners note or struggle with these same issues. Coindicence? One can see that many of them have been noted (at least in falconry) as due to human handling during critical imprinting stages. "Hand-raised," precisely what parrot buyers value and what falconers strive to avoid.

Imprinting is very real and has a lasting impact on a birds future. So, it's important to understand their biology in determining handling and husbandry methods as well as causes of behavioral problems. And especially in how we educate others. At the very least these similarities shouldn't be dismissed as AR propaganda.The above comes from my falconry training sources as an Audubon volunteer. Nothing remotely AR related. Sadly, if the analogy is accurate, it seems as though in creating the "good-pet" we create the very characteristics we find it so hard to live with down the road.

 

[melissasparrots]

Wow, David, apparently I hit a nerve for you. You do bring up some interesting points that I'll have to think about. I just don't have time to think up an organized and intelligent response right now. I've got a couple cages to clean, then off for a kayak to clear my head, then maybe a jog and if I'm not too tired to make sense, I'll post something later tonight.

 

[Sadieladie1994]

Your response confused me a bit David. I do not think we are comparing apple and oranges. Falconry avoids imprinting, wild life rescues avoid imprinting and species reintroduction programs avoid imprinting. Raising birds for pet trade as Melissa outlined I believe did not make a difference with coparenting, parent raised or hand raised. This is not the same as the other scenarios. Just my thoughts with first read.

 

[LaSelva]

"Raising birds for pet trade as Melissa outlined I believe did not make a difference with coparenting, parent raised or hand raised."

Sadieladie, yes, that was her experience. I'm trying to illustrate why there is a difference between the two as well as a grey area - which means there are different extents to which we can interfere with the critical juvenile developmental stage (imprinting) process. It makes the origin of behavioral issues difficult to pinpoint unless one knows the exact history of the bird. In other words, the extent of our hands-on involvement does make a difference it would seem. Maybe re-read her post that I was responding to and then what I posted?

I think the bottome line is the implication that maybe we should re-evaluate what we should consider a "good pet" when it comes to parrots. And that's because overhandling IS in fact creating issues detrimental to our future with them as well as their captive welfare. Do you understand a bit better what I mean? That it's not all the same. Let me know if you have any quest.

But one really has to delve into the subject of imprinting in birds (especially the various stages in altricial birds) in which case I think many things become clear. Because then one sees how it impacts the rest of their lives in irreversible ways (as imprinting is considered). Along the lines of what I was posting above.

Melissasparrots, as long as you don't mean that in a negative connotation. When people are saying things I agree with I generally leave well enough alone. If I feel strongly I voice my agreement. But, yeah, you seem to have brought up things that I felt I could comment on. But it's always to add insight where I feel a viewpoint doesn't take everything into consideration, etc. And some of what I said was in response to the general tone, even past threads. Ha Ha, I too should be doing other things as well....I feel bad for spending my time on the computer. The internet is truly a time thief!

 

[Sadieladie1994]

Oh I agree, imprinting does happen with birds in the pet trade. One thing I have mentioned in the past is when one raises a bird you need to allow to be a bird. There are breeders that are great at this and their birds are wonderful with minimal behavior issues. ie. Petting is not a natural behavior for birds but with our desire for pets and love one does go forward and pet them. Mine are not blown dried after a bath but left to groom themselves which is healthier. But one can make them overly dependent and at times behavior issues do emerge.

I have an 11 month old 3# dog. Over dependence would be carrying this dog every where and holding him all the time. Having had large dogs and performance dogs, I treat this little guy the same...he is a dog. Now, I do keep in mind he is small and watch for danger but otherwise he eats, potties, walks on a leash and is receiving some performance training. Not overly needed or dependent. I see birds in similar ways, very needy or somewhat independent. Both are still pets and yes imprinted to various degrees.

I do send wild life back to the wild and I do not try to get them to be pets. Those observing parrots in the wild have seen parents neglect a chic if there are two. Or they shove a chic out of the nest. Our human nature is to attempt to save all. This is not the way of the wild. The observers do not interfere and that is one of the harder aspects of gathering information.

The ones with me are pets and I may help one survive if parents bit off toes, a bird is splayed leg, a bird lost a wing, a bird is blind. The wild is not as forgiving as the strongest needs to survive.

Hope this helps understand what I think I was trying to say.

 

[Bartleby]

@LaSelva I do have to voice my disagreement with a portion of the excerpts you posted above about wolf and human co-evolution. I totally agree with the assertion that in the beginning wolf and man were more equal and that they most likely did influence each other's evolution greatly, but some of the assertions about pack dynamics and primate group dynamics are definitely not supported by any modern research I have seen.

Wolves live in family groups. A wolf pack is almost exclusively compromised of parents and their offspring. The female offspring tend to stay a couple of seasons before eventually splitting off to form a new pack, which accounts for some adult wolves being seen with packs. A lot of the pack theory/dominance issues have been debunked now that wolves have been studied in natural settings instead of throwing a bunch of unrelated wolves together and assuming that they would form a pack. In fact, a huge divergence between wolves and dogs is that dogs don't form packs. Feral dogs do not pack up and form complex social groups like even unrelated wolves will do when forced together. One could even say as dogs evolved alongside man they actually evolved away from social behavior. What does that say about the influence of man on dog?

As far as I know many of the higher primates, especially those living in groups, are territorial. Also the higher primates who live in groups tend to have far more loosely related kin relationships than the wild canids. Chimpanzees live in pretty large groups, compromised of mostly kin, but some pretty far removed. Aunts, uncles, cousins, etc...this dynamic is not present in any wolf populations that I know of. Gorillas are the same. They also have very, very complex social structures that involve daily interactions far beyond parent-child. Most chimpanzee troops have close non-kin same-sex relationships amongst the adolescent males and females. So much so that when the violent territorial disputes between different chimpanzee troops and the hunting parties were studied it turned out they were planned and perpetrated by the groups of adolescent males who worked cohesively and seemed to forge very strong bonds based on their battle experience.

Here's a link with some really fascinating information on general primate social groups:
Primate Behavior: Social Structure

I know this is not what this thread is about, but those shared quotes seem really far off base and I just couldn't let it be posted without an opposing view/interpretation.